[#BS#]

our schools trainer says that they are best before and after games.

but i dont listen and just drink it when ever i want... i know i'm a BAMF

[wakeboardr886]

I just drink water, milk, and green tea

[chodeyg]

no, i only use it when working out, and i'd rather not consume any artificial sweetener, i don't trust the stuff and i have a high metabolism so i'm not worried about gaining weight because of it. it's more that i'm wondering is the sugar gonna affect how well i rehydrate or is it still gonna be better than just water?

and also, is gatorade rain better than the regular variety? I thought it had lower sugar but i don't remember

[pbmink (Banned)]

i drink alot of cyto mac and endurox

[_V_]

School trainers know dick. Seriously, go to a endurance atlete or mountain climber forum and search, they really know whats good.

[element34575]

Originally Posted by flarkey25

I know. I saw this compain on TV trying to say that HFCS isn't bad for you. I thought of it as the tobacco industry telling me cigarettes were good for you, so I went and did about four hours of research and didn't find a single credible source that had even a scrap of evidence even suggesting that HFCS was any worse than any natural sugar. The ONLY illeffect was that people consuming excessive amounts became obese. Imagine that, eating a ton of sugar making you fat?



And how exactly is it processed? Do you know how these are made? I'll tell you. HFCS is being invesitigated by the FDA right now for the possibility of being labeled as a "natural ingredient". All HFCS is is the by-product of a few enzymes acting upon corn starch. That's it. It's like getting milk from a cow, but the cows are all microscopic proteins. It's a syrup consisting of 55% fructose, 50% glucose. Sucrose, regular table sugar, is 50% fructose, 50% glucose. The ONLY difference between the two is 5% fructose.

White sugar goes through a ton more processed to get the crystals out of the raw product, but what about that is bad for you? Do you think they just leave toxic chemicals on the sugar? I've done water treatment for a fortune 500 industrial complex (Alcoa Cleveland), so I'm familiar with the processes they use. The end product is damn near drinkable, and that's after it's had heavy industrial metals and solvents in it. If they're using food quality products and the processes have been evaluated by governing agencies, I feel perfectly safe consuming it.

So your logic is, that if HFCS is close to sugar syrup, and my government tells me it's safe, it all must be safe...

Those government agencies these days take your health into factor less than you would think...

Here's a few of the most popular and most toxic things that you probably consume, or have consumed...

They allow MSG into a lot of your garbage foods to make them taste better. Aspartame/other toxic artificial sweeteners are added in your diet sodas... Both of these chemicals are called excitotoxins, and are not healthy to consume...google it

in 80% of america, fluoride is added to your public drinking water, which they say reduces cavity's in teeth, yet is a proven false statement. Water fluoridation has been banned in 98% of Europe because of it's know toxicity and worthlessness... Click the link my sig, or google fluoride in water to find out what some doctors/scientists believe sodium fluoride does to your body...

I'm done with this BTW..

[shiboboo]

Originally Posted by flarkey25

I know. I saw this compain on TV trying to say that HFCS isn't bad for you. I thought of it as the tobacco industry telling me cigarettes were good for you, so I went and did about four hours of research and didn't find a single credible source that had even a scrap of evidence even suggesting that HFCS was any worse than any natural sugar. The ONLY illeffect was that people consuming excessive amounts became obese. Imagine that, eating a ton of sugar making you fat?



And how exactly is it processed? Do you know how these are made? I'll tell you. HFCS is being invesitigated by the FDA right now for the possibility of being labeled as a "natural ingredient". All HFCS is is the by-product of a few enzymes acting upon corn starch. That's it. It's like getting milk from a cow, but the cows are all microscopic proteins. It's a syrup consisting of 55% fructose, 50% glucose. Sucrose, regular table sugar, is 50% fructose, 50% glucose. The ONLY difference between the two is 5% fructose.

White sugar goes through a ton more processed to get the crystals out of the raw product, but what about that is bad for you? Do you think they just leave toxic chemicals on the sugar? I've done water treatment for a fortune 500 industrial complex (Alcoa Cleveland), so I'm familiar with the processes they use. The end product is damn near drinkable, and that's after it's had heavy industrial metals and solvents in it. If they're using food quality products and the processes have been evaluated by governing agencies, I feel perfectly safe consuming it.

Two things:
1. High fructose corn syrup is 105% sugar?
2. I sold my Alcoa stock at the end of last year /random thought association

[flarkey25]

45% glucose. That was a typo.

Originally Posted by element34575

So your logic is, that if HFCS is close to sugar syrup, and my government tells me it's safe, it all must be safe...

Those government agencies these days take your health into factor less than you would think...

HFCS isn't just close to table sugar, it's pretty much the same damn thing with a very minor difference in how much of the two components are present. It's not the government telling me its safe, its the hours of research I did that proved fruitless to find a single known hazard of consuming it other than obesity in those who consume excessive amounts.

[madgoat]

Originally Posted by flarkey25

45% glucose. That was a typo.




HFCS isn't just close to table sugar, it's pretty much the same damn thing with a very minor difference in how much of the two components are present. It's not the government telling me its safe, its the hours of research I did that proved fruitless to find a single known hazard of consuming it other than obesity in those who consume excessive amounts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-fr...Health_effects

"Large quantities of fructose stimulate the liver to produce triglycerides, promotes glycation of proteins and induces insulin resistance."

I know its wikipedia, but this article cited sources. More fructose is a not a good thing, and I know you're going to tell me its "only 5%", but for the average american consuming a ton of HFCS sweetened things, it will add up. Also, the article also stated that in HFCS the Fructose and Glucose are in seperate molecules, whereas in table Sugar they are combined into disacchrides.

NOTE: I'm not trying to say either are healthy, and for the extremely little amount of sugar I consume, it probably doesn't matter, so I personally don't avoid HFCS.

[E-M-P-I-R-E]

Originally Posted by element34575

and artificially colored & flavored...

lol in what way does that coloring hurt you..........and what about the flavoring? why is it that people think that anything "artificial" is bad for you.

[Wango_Tango]

Originally Posted by Kolder

Take everything with a grain of salt that you hear about HFCS, the positive movement as of late is funded by the corn industry go figure. Quite honestly scientists still do not know the full effects and I would recommend keeping HFCS intake low.

yup. really messes with your insulin levels.

[E-M-P-I-R-E]

Originally Posted by Wango_Tango

yup. really messes with your insulin levels.

have anything to back up the statement that HFCS affects insulin levels any more than table sugar?

[madgoat]

Originally Posted by E-M-P-I-R-E

have anything to back up the statement that HFCS affects insulin levels any more than table sugar?

I posted that link to wikipedia that had almost all its info footnoted, so you can go from there.

[flarkey25]

Originally Posted by madgoat

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-fr...Health_effects

"Large quantities of fructose stimulate the liver to produce triglycerides, promotes glycation of proteins and induces insulin resistance."

I know its wikipedia, but this article cited sources. More fructose is a not a good thing, and I know you're going to tell me its "only 5%", but for the average american consuming a ton of HFCS sweetened things, it will add up. Also, the article also stated that in HFCS the Fructose and Glucose are in seperate molecules, whereas in table Sugar they are combined into disacchrides.

NOTE: I'm not trying to say either are healthy, and for the extremely little amount of sugar I consume, it probably doesn't matter, so I personally don't avoid HFCS.

I went to the sentence you quoted and went to the article they cited as their source for that information. You can see the full text HERE
The study had a sample size of 7 men, which is pretty much a red flag right there. A sample size that low hardly shows any conclusive evidence for anything. And they consumed 25% of their calories, for 6 days, from fructose alone. They had them drink a solution of 20% fructose, with 3g per kilogram bodyweight every day for 6 days. If you take a person who weighs 170 pounds, that's making them DRINK 230g of fructose every day for 6 days. On top of that, they also had them consuming almost 40% of their other calories from other carbohydrate sources as well. (11% proteins, 26% lipids, 30% starch, 8% glucose and disaccharides, and 25% fructose.) If they were eating 2,500 calories a day, that's 400 grams of carbs, and it says that they were asks to abstain from strenuous activity for the week following the tests and for the duration of the experiment.

If you look at the discussion part of their study, they will tell you exactly what I'm getting at.

Our study design involved administration of an extra amount of fructose while leaving the other dietary intakes unchanged. It therefore resulted in both energy and fructose overfeeding. As such, it is representative of a condition where increased dietary fructose intake would not be compensated by a reduction of calories from other sources. It cannot, however, truly differentiate the effects of high-fructose intake per se and of energy total carbohydrate overfeeding. Only comparative studies involving subjects overfed with fructose versus starch or glucose will be able to address this issue.

Pretty much, they have no idea if it was the extra fructose, or just from an increased carbohydrate caloric load.

On top of that, the subjects were given a high fat and high carb diet, which makes the liver work over-time as it is.

Like I said, I have yet to see a single peice of research showing that anything less than pumping yourself full of pure fructose to the point of excessive caloric load is bad for you.

[madgoat]

Originally Posted by flarkey25

I went to the sentence you quoted and went to the article they cited as their source for that information. You can see the full text HERE
The study had a sample size of 7 men, which is pretty much a red flag right there. A sample size that low hardly shows any conclusive evidence for anything. And they consumed 25% of their calories, for 6 days, from fructose alone. They had them drink a solution of 20% fructose, with 3g per kilogram bodyweight every day for 6 days. If you take a person who weighs 170 pounds, that's making them DRINK 230g of fructose every day for 6 days. On top of that, they also had them consuming almost 40% of their other calories from other carbohydrate sources as well. (11% proteins, 26% lipids, 30% starch, 8% glucose and disaccharides, and 25% fructose.) If they were eating 2,500 calories a day, that's 400 grams of carbs, and it says that they were asks to abstain from strenuous activity for the week following the tests and for the duration of the experiment.

If you look at the discussion part of their study, they will tell you exactly what I'm getting at.


Pretty much, they have no idea if it was the extra fructose, or just from an increased carbohydrate caloric load.

On top of that, the subjects were given a high fat and high carb diet, which makes the liver work over-time as it is.

Like I said, I have yet to see a single peice of research showing that anything less than pumping yourself full of pure fructose to the point of excessive caloric load is bad for you.

I always assumed you were aware that glucose can be metabolized by any cell in the body, but fructose must be metabolized by the liver. I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that when you were doing all your research you searched "HFCS" and not just "Fructose vs. Glucose", or somehting similar to that, because you would have come up with a TON of information on fructose. Heres a start: www.nature.com/search/executeSearch?sp-q-9=oby&sp-q=fructose+vs+glucose&sp-c=10&sp-x-9=cat&sp-s=0&submit=go&sp-a=sp1001702d&sp-sfvl-field=subject|ujournal&sp-x-1=ujournal&sp-p-1=phrase&sp-p=all

[flarkey25]

And still, after looking through the first page of results you gave me, I find nothing that says that fructose, or even higher levels of it, are inheritantly unheathy. The only thing I've found is that studies in which the subjects consumed massive amounts of fructose and other carbohydrates when compared to the rest of their diet, they became more resistant to insulin and more like to become obese. Big news flash there, all carbohydrates (with the exception of fiber of course) do that to one degree or another if consumed in large quantities regularly.

My original arguement with the OP was that HFCS, or fructose in general, is not some doom-and-gloom substance that people are making it out to be these days. Imagine if I did a study where participants comsumed 50-60% of their calories from fat sources... You'd come up with some pretty negative results concerning body fat and metabolism too. I have seen nothing that says that moderate consumption of fructose or HFCS leads to any adverse effects, and that massive consumption leads to nothing more than poor insulin sensitivity and obesity, which are things all of us in here already know are symptoms of poor diet desicions.

[madgoat]

Originally Posted by flarkey25

And still, after looking through the first page of results you gave me, I find nothing that says that fructose, or even higher levels of it, are inheritantly unheathy. The only thing I've found is that studies in which the subjects consumed massive amounts of fructose and other carbohydrates when compared to the rest of their diet, they became more resistant to insulin and more like to become obese. Big news flash there, all carbohydrates (with the exception of fiber of course) do that to one degree or another if consumed in large quantities regularly.

My original arguement with the OP was that HFCS, or fructose in general, is not some doom-and-gloom substance that people are making it out to be these days. Imagine if I did a study where participants comsumed 50-60% of their calories from fat sources... You'd come up with some pretty negative results concerning body fat and metabolism too. I have seen nothing that says that moderate consumption of fructose or HFCS leads to any adverse effects, and that massive consumption leads to nothing more than poor insulin sensitivity and obesity, which are things all of us in here already know are symptoms of poor diet desicions.

I linked you to the wrong search results, my fault. This is the one I meant to link you to: here


"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)"

http://www.nature.com/oby/journal/v1...y2005136a.html

[flarkey25]

That doesn't change anything... What is the end result of all of those? Increased obesity after consuming larger than normal amounts of fructose over an extended period of time.

[madgoat]

Originally Posted by flarkey25

That doesn't change anything... What is the end result of all of those? Increased obesity after consuming larger than normal amounts of fructose over an extended period of time.

Which is the ONLY point I ever tried to make in this thread. I even stated that I still consume HFCS because I consume so little sugar that the slight difference doesn't matter to me.

[flarkey25]

Then why are you arguing with me? hahahahaah... I've been saying that the entire time.

[madgoat]

Because you quoted me and argued with me...Also, I wasn't even saying that fructose would necessarily cause obesity, I was simply stating that with long term, large consumption, there would probably be negative effects.