Advice please

[Lifterforlife]

While we are on the topic. Your statement is very broad. For example:
A)I ate less-
I had 1500calories in table sugar per day

B)I ate more-
I had 2000calories of lean meat, EFAs and complex-carbs

which one would provide for more bodyfat loss? B of course.

There is also a spin of words here by you, as no one on this diet forum wants to "lose weight", they want to lose FAT. Losing bodyfat is not simple by any means, and it is not just based on calories in VS. calories out, as that can vary greatly - all depending on type of nutrient intake. Just look at my table sugar example.

Speaking of broad???? Spin on words??? Your example holds no water, it is silly. It makes a comparison that in no way equates to a logical diet. This is indeed looking at your table sugar example. As you state, all on this forum want to lose fat, no one would ever think of a diet like that.

But again, as I opened this debate with may be worth revisiting. It was a sensible statement about fruit. You lead it into being evil with your posts, and it is not.

Here is the post....re read it again....it is sound advice....smart intake of fruit will not lead to weight gain or discourage fat loss......

I might point out that the whole no fructose thing is taken totally out of context. If you are in competition training/dieting to single digit bodyfat levels, then at that point yes, fruits become a no no. As all calories are at a premium, and must be utilized properly.

Fructose takes a non insulin dependent pathway. It does not affect insulin. There is no reason in the early stages at least of a diet that you can have no fruit. Limiting it and certain types of fruit may well be in order. For instance.....

Fruit with an excellent Thermogenic/Carbohydrate Ratio include: Apples, Blueberries, Grapefruit, Peaches, Strawberries vs. Inferior Thermogenic Effect Fruits: Bananas, Dried Fruit, Raisins, etc., Watermelon

 

[Mr.X]

There is no fallacy here. This is indeed what it is all about. Overconsumption. The majority of studies if you read them state just that, overconsumption. What I stated is indeed real world! What I am posting is exactly what we are discussing. Isn't caloric intake the bottom line of what we are discussing?

I will refer you back to this, so you stop waisting time re-posting the same thing.
http://www.elitefitness.com/forum/showpost.php?p=5740764&postcount=13

Caloric intake is NOT what we are discussing, we are discussing fructose intake; obviously, you're on a completely different page here.

This in the end is the result, and real world is the key. Studies are just that, studies. In the end, real world is what does matter. The bottom line, is our calorie intake. .

Ok, you're right, who needs studies. What do these Ph.Ds and M.Ds know right? they are idiots. Yup, you're right.... I give up.

There is absolutely no reason why someone cannot eat fruits smartly, even on a diet.

again I'll refer you here:
http://www.elitefitness.com/forum/showpost.php?p=5740764&postcount=13

"smartly" they can eat some fructose on a regular day-to-day caloric intake, but to lose bodyfat fructose is not a food that should be considered. I really do hate repeating myself.

 

[Mr.X]

Speaking of broad???? Spin on words??? Your example holds no water, it is silly. It makes a comparison that in no way equates to a logical diet. This is indeed looking at your table sugar example. As you state, all on this forum want to lose fat, no one would ever think of a diet like that.

My example makes a point about telling people diets, fat-loss are only about calories in vs. calories out. Cin vs. Cout is a completely false theory, obviously disproven by my simple example.

 

[Mr.X]

Fructose raises uric acid, the latter which inhibits nitric oxide bioavailability. .....These data provide the first evidence that uric acid may be a cause of the metabolic syndrome, possibly due to its ability to inhibit endothelial function. Fructose may have a major role in the epidemic of metabolic syndrome and obesity due to its ability to raise uric acid.

Am J Physiol Renal Physiol. 2005

 

[Lifterforlife]

I will refer you back to this, so you stop waisting time re-posting the same thing.
http://www.elitefitness.com/forum/showpost.php?p=5740764&postcount=13

Caloric intake is NOT what we are discussing, we are discussing fructose intake; obviously, you're on a completely different page here.

Again, what causes fat gain or loss in the end? Caloric intake. Talk about hating to repeat oneself. Overeat, gain weight(fat), bring calories under maintenance in a sensible way, and lose fat. And yes, I said fat, using a diet that does include some fruit.

Ok, you're right, who needs studies. What do these Ph.Ds and M.Ds know right? they are idiots. Yup, you're right.... I give up.

And how many of these "studies" have not panned out in the real world? The labaratory does not always mimic real world. Surely you being a student of diet have seen these studies proved wrong many times. I posted studies also, and for every study these days, you can find one that opposes it in some way. Real world evidence is what we folks want to know, not what is done on rats.

again I'll refer you here:
http://www.elitefitness.com/forum/showpost.php?p=5740764&postcount=13

"smartly" they can eat some fructose on a regular day-to-day caloric intake, but to lose bodyfat fructose is not a food that should be considered. I really do hate repeating myself.

You started out good here...smartly they can eat some fructose. This is indeed the case, and a direct quote of my original post.... Talk about hating to repeat myself.

 

[Mr.X]

Again, fructose doesn't raise insulin, the body also burns more fat after fructose feeding compared to other sugars.

your post: http://www.elitefitness.com/forum/showpost.php?p=5741434&postcount=14


Let's see:

Department of Pharmacology, German Institute of Human Nutrition, Potsdam-Rehbruecke, Arthur-Scheunert-Allee 114-116, 14558 Nuthetal, Germany. [email protected]

OBJECTIVE: The marked increase in the prevalence of obesity in the United States has recently been attributed to the increased fructose consumption. To determine if and how fructose might promote obesity in an animal model, we measured body composition, energy intake, energy expenditure, substrate oxidation, and several endocrine parameters related to energy homeostasis in mice consuming fructose. RESEARCH METHODS AND PROCEDURES: We compared the effects of ad libitum access to fructose (15% solution in water) [Mr.X ADD: note it's only 15%], sucrose (10%, popular soft drink), and artificial sweetener (0% calories, popular diet soft drink) on adipogenesis and energy metabolism in mice. RESULTS: Exposure to fructose water increased adiposity, whereas increased fat mass after consumption of soft drinks or diet soft drinks did not reach statistical significance (n = 9 each group). Total intake of energy was unaltered, because mice proportionally reduced their caloric intake from chow. There was a trend toward reduced energy expenditure and increased respiratory quotient, albeit not significant, in the fructose group. Furthermore, fructose produced a hepatic lipid accumulation with a characteristic pericentral pattern.

Obes Res. 2005 Jul;13(7):1146-56
*******

 

[Mr.X]

And how many of these "studies" have not panned out in the real world? The labaratory does not always mimic real world. Surely you being a student of diet have seen these studies proved wrong many times. I posted studies also, and for every study these days, you can find one that opposes it in some way. Real world evidence is what we folks want to know, not what is done on rats.

LOL, ok, you're right, studies are wrong, wrong, wrong, and you are 100% right. Who am I to argue with such an intellectual. I had rarely, if ever, met people who discredit Ph.Ds and M.Ds., except FONZ maybe, so I have nothing more to say to you.

I will now step back from the conversation and let the reader see the facts I posted and the "facts" you posted.

 

[Lifterforlife]

your post: http://www.elitefitness.com/forum/showpost.php?p=5741434&postcount=14


Let's see:

Department of Pharmacology, German Institute of Human Nutrition, Potsdam-Rehbruecke, Arthur-Scheunert-Allee 114-116, 14558 Nuthetal, Germany. [email protected]

OBJECTIVE: The marked increase in the prevalence of obesity in the United States has recently been attributed to the increased fructose consumption. To determine if and how fructose might promote obesity in an animal model, we measured body composition, energy intake, energy expenditure, substrate oxidation, and several endocrine parameters related to energy homeostasis in mice consuming fructose. RESEARCH METHODS AND PROCEDURES: We compared the effects of ad libitum access to fructose (15% solution in water) [Mr.X ADD: note it's only 15%], sucrose (10%, popular soft drink), and artificial sweetener (0% calories, popular diet soft drink) on adipogenesis and energy metabolism in mice. RESULTS: Exposure to fructose water increased adiposity, whereas increased fat mass after consumption of soft drinks or diet soft drinks did not reach statistical significance (n = 9 each group). Total intake of energy was unaltered, because mice proportionally reduced their caloric intake from chow. There was a trend toward reduced energy expenditure and increased respiratory quotient, albeit not significant, in the fructose group. Furthermore, fructose produced a hepatic lipid accumulation with a characteristic pericentral pattern.

Obes Res. 2005 Jul;13(7):1146-56
*******

Another study on rats....and this does not even take into account mixed meals....again, show me a study on humans in an isocaloric state that shows fructose(in fact I would get a bit more involved here and using any of the fruits that I pointed out in my post....Apples, Blueberries, Grapefruit, Peaches, Strawberries in that context (isocaloric) causes weight gain or fat gain.