5 ms·

Then don't eat fructose.

by TEMPLEOS_DEV 12y ago

WillPostForFood 12y ago
Exactly, it is more complicated than calories-in-calories-out.
- cbd1984 12y ago
  Calories in calories out is physics nothing can override or circumvent. It's a basic plausibility test. Fructose obeys the same laws as everything else. It might be harder to hit a calorie target if you eat fructose but if you do, that's it. It has to work. Anyone who disputes this is scientifically illiterate.
  - seekingtruth 12y ago
    > Anyone who disputes this is scientifically illiterate. Well, those who possess a lower IQ are more likely to become obese. So perhaps not understanding the way the universe works is how they wind up obese in the first place. Not too surprising, then, that they would be unable to comprehend how to get themselves out of that state. And there is certainly no shortage of charlatans and mountebanks out there all too ready to lead them astray.
    - seekingtruth 12y ago
      For the person who downvoted: http://personal.lse.ac.uk/kanazawa/pdfs/COEDO2014.pdf http://personal.lse.ac.uk/kanazawa/pdfs/COEDO2014.pdf
  - CyberDildonics 12y ago
    Well, speaking of illiterate, no one actually disputed that. It still is, however a gross oversimplification. Fructose is dense in calories, easily absorbed (which is calories in, not necessarily the food you swallow), contributes heavily to lipogenesis, and does not inhibit leptin, a hormone that controls hunger. Lots of data and an entertaining presentation, which starts by addressing calories in and calories out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0z5X0i92OZQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0z5X0i92OZQ
    - cbd1984 12y ago
      "Sugar: The Bitter Truth" and Lustig's work in general is highly questionable. http://www.heartacademy.org/phpwcms/index.php?the-poisonous-truth-about-sugar http://www.heartacademy.org/phpwcms/index.php?the-poisonous-... http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/brainwaves/2013/07/15/is-sugar-really-toxic-sifting-through-the-evidence/ http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/brainwaves/2013/07/15/is...
      - CyberDildonics 12y ago
        The core idea he is trying to get across is that diets shifting to significantly more fructose and significantly less fiber has created the rapid rise in obesity in the US. Is that up for dispute?
    - aaxe 12y ago
      leptin is for fullness, ghrelin is for hunger. Please no - you're someone who knows a bit but thinks they know the full picture. You're way overreactding.
      - CyberDildonics 12y ago
        That's only a semantic difference in the context of my post since I wasn't differentiating between two different hormones.
- TEMPLEOS_DEV 12y ago
  No. It's not. Lipogenesis won't happen if your body is in a catabolic state which you get by a caloric deficit. You don't need to use a fancy model. Fructose is more likely to be used as liver fat. But, that doesn't mean it's impossible to lose weight.

Then don't eat fructose.

WillPostForFood 12y ago

Exactly, it is more complicated than calories-in-calories-out.

cbd1984 12y ago
Calories in calories out is physics nothing can override or circumvent. It's a basic plausibility test. Fructose obeys the same laws as everything else. It might be harder to hit a calorie target if you eat fructose but if you do, that's it. It has to work. Anyone who disputes this is scientifically illiterate.
- seekingtruth 12y ago
  > Anyone who disputes this is scientifically illiterate. Well, those who possess a lower IQ are more likely to become obese. So perhaps not understanding the way the universe works is how they wind up obese in the first place. Not too surprising, then, that they would be unable to comprehend how to get themselves out of that state. And there is certainly no shortage of charlatans and mountebanks out there all too ready to lead them astray.
  - seekingtruth 12y ago
    For the person who downvoted: http://personal.lse.ac.uk/kanazawa/pdfs/COEDO2014.pdf http://personal.lse.ac.uk/kanazawa/pdfs/COEDO2014.pdf
- CyberDildonics 12y ago
  Well, speaking of illiterate, no one actually disputed that. It still is, however a gross oversimplification. Fructose is dense in calories, easily absorbed (which is calories in, not necessarily the food you swallow), contributes heavily to lipogenesis, and does not inhibit leptin, a hormone that controls hunger. Lots of data and an entertaining presentation, which starts by addressing calories in and calories out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0z5X0i92OZQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0z5X0i92OZQ
  - cbd1984 12y ago
    "Sugar: The Bitter Truth" and Lustig's work in general is highly questionable. http://www.heartacademy.org/phpwcms/index.php?the-poisonous-truth-about-sugar http://www.heartacademy.org/phpwcms/index.php?the-poisonous-... http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/brainwaves/2013/07/15/is-sugar-really-toxic-sifting-through-the-evidence/ http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/brainwaves/2013/07/15/is...
    - CyberDildonics 12y ago
      The core idea he is trying to get across is that diets shifting to significantly more fructose and significantly less fiber has created the rapid rise in obesity in the US. Is that up for dispute?
  - aaxe 12y ago
    leptin is for fullness, ghrelin is for hunger. Please no - you're someone who knows a bit but thinks they know the full picture. You're way overreactding.
    - CyberDildonics 12y ago
      That's only a semantic difference in the context of my post since I wasn't differentiating between two different hormones.
TEMPLEOS_DEV 12y ago
No. It's not. Lipogenesis won't happen if your body is in a catabolic state which you get by a caloric deficit. You don't need to use a fancy model. Fructose is more likely to be used as liver fat. But, that doesn't mean it's impossible to lose weight.