PDA

View Full Version : HFCS's negatives



Behemoth
12-04-2003, 05:14 PM
I've searched about high fructose corn syrup but quite literally all I can find about it is that it's "bad". What's so bad about it? What does it do when it's broken down in your body?

WillKuenzel
12-04-2003, 05:40 PM
Instead of replenishing muscle glycogen, it tends to mainly replace liver glycogen. Its not the best option, when doing refeeds or post workout shakes for that reason.

greekboy80
12-04-2003, 07:31 PM
Oh there a lot of negatives!

http://www.menshealth.com/cda/article/0,6916,s1-4-0-0-492,00.html

Give it a read...

Behemoth
12-04-2003, 07:36 PM
So HFCS is not good for refeeds, I see why it gets such a bad rap.

But seriously, there has to be more to it than it primarily replenishes liver glycogen as oppose to muscle glycogen for it to be deemed so "unhealthy".

greekboy80
12-04-2003, 07:39 PM
Ummmmmmmmmmmm.....Read above:scratch:

Behemoth
12-04-2003, 07:39 PM
A fair read greekboy, thanks. But that article seemed to insinuate that the HFCS itself would make one fat. This goes against the whole conecpt of cal in vs cals out. Is this an exception or simply an overhyped theory?

Behemoth
12-04-2003, 07:40 PM
Check the time, you'll notice your post was most likely not posted when i typed my second response. ;)

greekboy80
12-04-2003, 07:47 PM
How so? it tells you everything that you need to hear.

no it does'nt go aginst the concept of cals in cals out. thats like saying "who cares ill eat all the white bread, potatos, and macaroni that i want, it doesnt matter, its all about cals in cals out". yes thats true, but theres better choices and hormonal influences that also have to be taken into consideration.

thetopdog
12-04-2003, 08:35 PM
I think it's basically that high GI carbs make you fat, but some high GI carbs have their place because they repelnish muscle glycogen quickly, but fructose doesn't do this so it's basically useless

Saint Patrick
12-04-2003, 10:18 PM
Originally posted by Behemoth
A fair read greekboy, thanks. But that article seemed to insinuate that the HFCS itself would make one fat. This goes against the whole conecpt of cal in vs cals out. Is this an exception or simply an overhyped theory?


It's more than just cals in vs cals out. If that was the case then you could eat 5 donuts a day on a cut as long as you were below maintenance cals. I mean caloric intake is a big part of it, bue your choices in foods play a big role as well.

thetopdog
12-05-2003, 01:33 AM
Originally posted by Saint Patrick



It's more than just cals in vs cals out. If that was the case then you could eat 5 donuts a day on a cut as long as you were below maintenance cals. I mean caloric intake is a big part of it, bue your choices in foods play a big role as well.

You can eat 5 donuts a day on a cut, if that's all you were eating, you would probably lose muscle mass as well, but you can definitely lose fat while eating junk food

greekboy80
12-05-2003, 08:47 AM
Would be eating 5 doughnuts a day be advisable...?

if your answer is no, then you have the answer to your first question.

thetopdog
12-05-2003, 09:32 AM
Originally posted by greekboy80
Would be eating 5 doughnuts a day be advisable...?

if your answer is no, then you have the answer to your first question.

It would definitely not be healthy, but being healthy and being OK bodybuilding wise are often two very different things

And I'm not sure what my first question was (unless you were talking to somebody else, if so then sorry)

galileo
12-05-2003, 09:52 AM
I implore everyone here to eat nothing but lean protein and doughnuts for their next cut. Then, try to maintain on the same, with your "maintenance" calories.

Holto
12-05-2003, 09:57 AM
Originally posted by Saint Patrick
It's more than just cals in vs cals out. If that was the case then you could eat 5 donuts a day on a cut as long as you were below maintenance cals.

yes that is the case

if you took in adequate efa, eaa's and micronutrients you could get the majority of your carbs from crispy creme's

and still cut

it's just that simple

I lost 15 Lbs eating pizza and two cokes a day

(without any training)

Lyle Macdonald said we could get ripped on table sugar if the essential nutrients were provided as well

Now I'm eating totally clean

1Lb veggies & three servings of fruit each day and no coke, very little pizza

and I'm still losing at the same rate as when my diet was garbage

I'm losing 5lbs every 3 weeks with no exercise

(I'm hurt up :( )

Holto
12-05-2003, 09:59 AM
Originally posted by galileo
I implore everyone here to eat nothing but lean protein and doughnuts for their next cut.

if that could supply all the essential nutrients then it would work fine

Holto
12-05-2003, 10:02 AM
Originally posted by Behemoth
A fair read greekboy, thanks. But that article seemed to insinuate that the HFCS itself would make one fat. This goes against the whole conecpt of cal in vs cals out. Is this an exception or simply an overhyped theory?

not to mention that all it really says is that your body is more likely to convert it to fat

(which would be used for energy if in a calorie deficit)

thanks though greekboy I was really wondering

with the rap it gets in health media I thought it was carcinogenic

galileo
12-05-2003, 12:39 PM
Do it then, please.

Mik
12-05-2003, 12:48 PM
:bang:

greekboy80
12-06-2003, 03:24 PM
im just saying that you can do it if you want and it would work fine. but it would not be for the better, you could accomplish more and have better results by eating clean.

JuniorMint6669
12-06-2003, 04:08 PM
ive actually gone from cutting using only clean foods to cutting with eating whatever. It's working well so far. Granted, im not eating crispy creames, but i am eating philly cheese steak's, starbucks, sugary cereal and other things i considered "crap" before on a semi regular basis. Do I recommend this? No, because most people aren't as intricate with counting calories as I am, and a quick stop at mcdonalds will put you in the 1500-2000 calorie range.

Ive never considered HFCS especially evil, but as homie said, its not optimal for muscle glycogen replenishment. This is when high-gi carbs are most useful. I think something to be considered is calorie density and the lack of satiation that a soda provides. You could pound down a lot of HFCS fast and not realize it, making you fat. Try the same with 2000 calories worth of potatoes or ww bread or oatmeal.

JTyrell710
12-06-2003, 05:34 PM
crackpot theory in the making*
what if u ate hcfs before eating other good carbs, that way ur liver glycogen stores would already be done and ur muscles could be filled up easily
i lost 10 pounds easy while eating LOADS of hcfs.. and then some carbs afterwards

JuniorMint6669
12-06-2003, 05:59 PM
What makes liver glycogen stores drop? Anyone?

And I think I heard any type of carb can refil liver glycogen. is this correct? where is aka or brad when you need 'em

Scott S
12-06-2003, 07:27 PM
Liver glycogen is used to keep blood sugar levels up.

Regular carbohydrate foods will refill both muscle and liver glycogen, so it wouldn't really make much sense to add HFCS to the mix.

Saint Patrick
01-01-2004, 09:20 PM
HFCS will slow down your metabolism. Therefore it has no place in a serious bodybuilder's diet.


Hey Holto, let's see some before & after pics of your Coke & Pizza cutting diet.

Behemoth
01-01-2004, 10:06 PM
Any evidence or studies on that SP?

Saint Patrick
01-02-2004, 02:25 AM
Let me see what I can dig up......

Saint Patrick
01-02-2004, 02:49 AM
This is from a few mins of surfing:

1) "While research is still being conducted as to the health detriments of high-fructose corn syrup, many scientists are concluding that this sweetener could be a key player in the nation's obesity epidemic. "Fructose is more readily metabolized into fat," argues Peter Havel, Ph.D., a nutritionist from the University of California at Davis, in a recent Men's Health Magazine. When a person consumes carbohydrates, insulin is released to provide proper storage and distribution of the food energy and to suppress the person's appetite. Another hormone -- leptin -- is also stimulated to perform similar tasks and regulate the metabolism.

"According to Havel, "Fructose doesn't stimulate insulin and therefore doesn't increase the production of leptin." Conclusion: you can consume large quantities of foods that are high in high-fructose corn syrup and never feel full. Basically, the empty calories from the high-fructose corn syrup make a clear dash for your waistline."

2) "Several recent studies have shown that fructose is processed differently in the body than the far more common sugar, glucose (3,4). Glucose causes the pancreas to release insulin which drives sugar from the bloodstream into cells. Glucose causes fat cells to release leptin that makes you feel full so you eat less. Glucose prevents the stomach from releasing ghrelin that makes you hungry. On the other hand, fructose does not cause fat cells to release leptin and does not suppress ghrelin. This means that fructose increases hunger to make you eat more. Furthermore, the liver converts fructose far more readily to a body fat called triglyceride, than it does with glucose. High triglyceride levels raise blood levels of the bad LDL cholesterol and lower blood levels of the good HDL cholesterol, which increases heart attack risk. "

3)"Sucrose is composed of glucose and fructose. When sugar is given to rats in high amounts, the rats develop multiple health problems, especially when the rats were deficient in certain nutrients, such as copper. The researchers wanted to know whether it was the fructose or the glucose moiety that was causing the problems. So they repeated their studies with two groups of rats, one given high amounts of glucose and one given high amounts of fructose. The glucose group was unaffected but the fructose group had disastrous results. The male rats did not reach adulthood. They had anemia, high cholesterol and heart hypertrophy—that means that their hearts enlarged until they exploded. They also had delayed testicular development. Dr. Field explains that fructose in combination with copper deficiency in the growing animal interferes with collagen production. (Copper deficiency, by the way, is widespread in America.) In a nutshell, the little bodies of the rats just fell apart. The females were not so affected, but they were unable to produce live young.

"The medical profession thinks fructose is better for diabetics than sugar," says Dr. Field, "but every cell in the body can metabolize glucose. However, all fructose must be metabolized in the liver. The livers of the rats on the high fructose diet looked like the livers of alcoholics, plugged with fat and cirrhotic."

aka23
01-02-2004, 03:02 AM
I've searched about high fructose corn syrup but quite literally all I can find about it is that it's "bad". What's so bad about it? What does it do when it's broken down in your body?

The name high fructose corn syrup is somewhat misleading. Concentrations vary, but it is typically about 50% fructose and 50% glucose, like table sugar. I suspect that the fructose is the portion that most bodybuilders have a problem with.

The theory is that fructose goes through different nutritional pathways than glucose, making it more likely to be converted into triglycerides (fat). In addition some bodybuilders have reported negative body fat effects when changing all of their carbs to bananas while preparing for a contest (not sure why they would do this in the first place).

Some studies found increased triglycerides with 50g fructose, while others found no increase with 20% of calories in diet as fructose. The limit is dependent on many factors including age, sex, baseline glucose, insulin, and triglyceride concentrations, caloric balance, training/exercise, %CHO in diet, and the presence of insulin resistance. It is also important to note that these studies almost always used fructose based sweeteners, such as high fructose corn syrup, rather than fruit. It is my understanding that the 50g figure is a lower limit that is usually associated with men on a caloric surplus who handle insulin poorly and have high triglycerides (have a tendency to convert fructose into triglycerides). I believe that the typical person can handle significantly more fructose without plasma triglyceride issues.

There are also a number of other negative effects associated with fructose intakes including refilling liver rather than muscle glycogen, and decreased fat burning (more than glucose). Very high levels may be associated with negative insulin/diabetic issues, decreased BMR, and reduced fullness (less insulin/leptin). Fructose has a number of benefits as well including promoting anabolism and reduced insulin response compared to glucose. Fructose can be beneficial because it is more effective at restoring liver glycogen levels than glucose. It is important to restore liver glycogen reasons for a variety of reasons including liver glycogen levels being one of the body's key factors in returning from a catabolic to an anabolic state. When refilling glycogen levels, I think the clear majority of carbs should come from glucose/dextrose/starch/etc, but some fructose can be beneficial as well. Many experts suggest that a postworkout drink should include fructose, along with glucose/dextrose type sugars.

The negative effects are usually related to fructose as a sweetene, like table sugar (like the type in cold cereals) and high fructose corn syrup. A smaller portion of the calories in fruit comes from fructose. The amount varies depending on the fruit. A typical piece of fruit may contain anywhere from 2-7g of fructose. The highest amounts are usually found in low GI fruits like apples and pears since fructose causes a smaller blood sugar increase than glucose.

In my opinion the benefits of a moderate fruit intake outweigh the possible negative aspects associated with the fructose. These benefits include a good amount of vitamins, minerals, phytochemicals, antioxidants, cartenoids, flavones, fructooligosaccharides, and fiber, etc. Many of these compounds are difficult to find in other food groups. On the other hand table sugar and sweeteners have little benefit outside of refilling glycogen stores and usually contain much more fructose.

A study that supports this conclusion is listed at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8116555&dopt=Abstract

"Ordinary intakes of sucrose or fructose do not have any special elevating effect on plasma triglycerides in most normal and diabetic people, provided energy balance is not changed. Although biochemical theory predicts that fructose is more lipogenic than glucose, nearly all the animal reports of elevated plasma lipids with sucrose- or fructose-rich diets were obtained with diets unnaturally high in these sugars, and in rats and not other species. In humans, increased (fasting) triglycerides are observed with very high intakes, > 35% of energy from sucrose or > 20% of energy from fructose, and even then triglyceride elevation is unlikely unless the subjects are male and dietary fat is saturated."

I see little benefit to consuming the empty calories in high fructose corn syrup, expect possibly near workouts and in other special conditions when one wants to quickly come out of a catabolic state. In many such situations, a piece of fruit could be a good alternative.

Behemoth
01-02-2004, 12:54 PM
Thanks!