Click Here if you want to upgrade your account
If you were able to post but cannot do so now, send an email to admin at raypeatforum dot com and include your username and we will fix that right up for you.
Hehe! You drink 12 liters of milk and I eat 20 kilos of watermelon, rinds included. We'd be unstoppable in an eating contest.
Like I said those were just my naughty fruity thoughts, nothing scientific just my opinion.Well, the fruit comments were made specifically in the context of evolving a large brain.
If we're considering wild native fruits, there is some good evidence put forth by Denise Minger that fruit of the past is comparable in energetic density to the fruit of today -- Wild and Ancient Fruit: Is it Really Small, Bitter, and Low in Sugar?
Is fruit consumption sufficient to provide for the required glucose requirements of the brain? The researchers of the originally referred to study contend that the mix of glucose and fructose, along with the relative high abundance of starch-containing foods vs fruits, likely indicate that the starches were the primary energetic driver -- http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/682587
----
What does "fit with our metabolism" mean?
Under what circumstances do "blood sugar crashes" happen? And why is fructose uniquely beneficial compared to other macro nutrients.
I can cite benefits and drawbacks of fructose. Fructose doesn't raise insulin nearly as much as glucose -- insulin is a feedback mechanism for energetic overload, and which is also required for many processes (like thyroid hormone utilisation).
Fructose is very poor at replenishing muscle glycogen -- just look at all the studies regarding carbohydrate re-feeding, fructose is very poor at re-establishing muscle glycogen due to the high hepatic load, and inability to be transported by GLUT4.
And while I don't put too much weight in this Rat study, here is one talking about how fructose can suppress GLUT4 vs a glucose feeding scenario, making it harder for muscles to uptake glucose in the post exercise condition -- Suppression of the GLUT4 adaptive response to exercise in fructose-fed rats
That study should actually be read as "fructose + PUFA", since we're talking about a standard chow diet. But still, glucose + PUFA still preferentially allowed muscles to uptake more carbohydrate.
More realistically, a 2:1 glucose to fructose re-feeding scenario seems to be equivalent to a pure glucose re-feeding scenario -- Postexercise muscle glycogen synthesis with combined glucose and fructose ingestion. - PubMed - NCBI . Note however, that pure sugar is a 1:1 glucose to fructose ratio.
Then, regarding a statement like: "A healthy liver which is not overloaded with fats can very very easily handle enormous amounts of fructose. Of course this only works while pretty low on fat"
Firstly, the inevitable rise in triglycerides when eating Fructose is something that needs to be explained. I have stated before that I view this as Fructose causing the liver to release stored fat, and not because of De-novo Lipogenesis from Fructose -- Natalie Zimmerman: "The Woefully Misguided War On Carbohydrates"
This doesn't say anything for how well a "healthy liver" can handle fat, and doesn't have anything to do with the fat content of the diet in the short run.
eg: If as a Male, a person is at 15% body fat, even if they eat a zero fat diet that is high in fructose, this high liver triglyceride phenomena is still going to occur.
How this fructose is handled in the liver and other tissues is a big big question mark
Thoroughly complex and impossible to determine in real time. eg: Randle effect favours fatty acid suppression in the face of high carbohydrate concentration in the liver -- what happens to the released fatty acids floating around in the liver after fructose consumption?
There is good evidence for a U-shaped dose-relationship regarding fructose, with some fructose enhancing metabolism, and more not necessarily becoming harmful. As for the mechanisms of harm, so much is centered around this fuzzy concept called "liver health", which no one knows how to determine, and which is therefore impossible to practically quantify in real time.
Sidenote: I have opined that the 10-15% carbohydrate as fructose rule is probably where the most benefits lie. Search my previous posts for details.
Glucose is "safer" in the sense that:
- The ability to both monitor and regulate glucose flux is greater, both from the perspective of the body (superoxide and insulin signalling to regulate glucose input) and humans (blood glucose monitors)
- The storage and mobilisation capacity is much larger (eg: muscles with 400g glycogen that is more directly stored via Glucose). The "margin of error" for glucose consumption is therefore greater.
This is not saying that "people should eat glucose", that is a determination for people to make themselves based on principles and experimentation. But similarly, to say that fructose is uniquely good is also not accurate.
....

Let's announce the all pufa free Peaty eating contest 2016.
View attachment 3096 View attachment 3096 View attachment 3096 View attachment 3096 View attachment 3096
View attachment 3096 View attachment 3096 View attachment 3096 View attachment 3096 View attachment 3096
View attachment 3098
(Have been waiting for an opportunity to spam Pusheens ....... :3 I promise it'll only this one time)
....
Could I have a link to this thread?
. The TL;DR is "short grain rice and waxy potatoes likely least problematic". -- I Recreated Pusheen Stickers With My Cat (13 Pics)
"If it's not about making me look good. I'm out!"I've discussed rice, different types of rice, and at least some discussion of potatoes in this thread:
- Natalie Zimmerman: "The Woefully Misguided War On Carbohydrates"
- Natalie Zimmerman: "The Woefully Misguided War On Carbohydrates"
You'll have to read those for details
I've discussed wheat in this thread. I am obviously a fan of avoidance if possible based on the risk assessment criteria I laid out -- Endotoxin And Fat Consumption
...
And yes, Pusheen is a fat cat
.....
Hmm...yeah, now that you mention it, that is a lot of water. I wonder where it all goes because I don't pee a lot despite taking in that much fluid. My belly doesn't even expand much despite the huge fruit intake and me being a petite female. I must have the black hole for a gut.
Hmm...I wonder if Charlie can make this happen. Haha!
Let's announce the all pufa free Peaty eating contest 2016.
Test
