Lydiard himself advocated honey loading. Good points.
I have learned to always eat foods in their least processed and closest to natural state possible.
Lydiard himself advocated honey loading. Good points.
I have learned to always eat foods in their least processed and closest to natural state possible.
alpha wrote:
You are dumb as the day is long if you believe this prop. from and industry advocacy group...
I mean REALLY F*#KIN stupid
MD/PHD or not.
Do you know what the American Chemical Society is? It is the professional organization for chemists. Sort of like the American Medical Association or American Bar Association. How are they an "industry advocacy group" for HFCS producers?
best way to go. grab some honey right after a run for a quick sugar boost. get some complex carbs and protein into you as quickly as you can in your next meal. pretty much the same effect as a bar and better for you.
Despite the HFCS, Power Bars and Cliff Bars are mostly complex carbohydrates and have 10g of protein (further lowering the glycemic effect of the bar). Honey has no satiety value or protein. Eat 240 calories of honey and a power bar and see which makes you feel like you've eaten something.
If fructose is the simplest sugar, why do we learn that fructose from fruit is better than eating sweets? I read the posted article, but it didn't tell me much about the dietetic effects of both. If fructose is most easily broken down, wouldn't it be worse than sucrose?
From one study on HFCS-
There's a couple of other murky things that consumers should know about HFCS. According to a food technology expert, two of the enzymes used, alpha-amylase and glucose-isomerase, are genetically modified to make them more stable. Enzymes are actually very large proteins and through genetic modification specific amino acids in the enzymes are changed or replaced so the enzyme's "backbone" won't break down or unfold. This allows the industry to get the enzymes to higher temperatures before they become unstable.
Consumers trying to avoid genetically modified foods should avoid HFCS. It is almost certainly made from genetically modified corn and then it is processed with genetically modified enzymes. I've seen some estimates claiming that virtually everything—almost 80 percent—of what we eat today has been genetically modified at some point. Since the use of HFCS is so prevalent in processed foods, those figures may be right.
But there's another reason to avoid HFCS. Consumers may think that because it contains fructose—which they associate with fruit, which is a natural food—that it is healthier than sugar. A team of investigators at the USDA, led by Dr. Meira Field, has discovered that this just ain't so.
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."
HFCS contains more fructose than sugar and this fructose is more immediately available because it is not bound up in sucrose. Since the effects of fructose are most severe in the growing organism, we need to think carefully about what kind of sweeteners we give to our children. Fruit juices should be strictly avoided—they are very high in fructose—but so should anything with HFCS.
Interestingly, although HFCS is used in many products aimed at children, it is not used in baby formula, even though it would probably save the manufactueres a few pennies for each can. Do the formula makers know something they aren't telling us? Pretty murky!
chuck d wrote:
christ. HFCS isn't cigarettes.
Man. Cigarettes aren't Crack/Cocaine.
You believe too much hype. A cigarette every now and then won't hurt you.
[/quote]
Man. Cigarettes aren't Crack/Cocaine.
You believe too much hype. A cigarette every now and then won't hurt you.[/quote]
It all depends. Some people will develop lung cancer after just a few months of smoking or being around second hand for only a year, and some will go many decades with no observable problem at all. Asians, Hispanics, and Indians are the least susceptable towards lung cancer because their lungs can deal witchit.
Whites and Blacks however can not deal with cigarettes nearly as well.
The same applies towards HFCS and diabetes, the ultimate risk. Whites, Asians, Blacks, and Indians and those that are sedentary stand a greater risk from Diabetes (which is not fun, you get your limbs sawed off and die like a bitch). Hispanics have shown some resistance to Diabetes but that probably has to do with their diet of corn, tomatoes, and other good stuff preventing Diabetes.
The killer combination to white people is Saturated Fat, Cholesterol, Cigarettes, and HFCS. It kills more of them than anything else.
For Blacks, its the same plus beer, it really screws up the liver.
For Hispanics and Asians its usually starvation or poor diet rather than anything that effects us.
For Indians it is beer as well.
Everyone is different though and these are just generalizations. But generally generalizations are correct and if you think you're that unique individual that won't die from one of these you probably are mistaken. Also those who are more genetically diverse stand a lesser chance of developing these problems. If you don't like it tought SH**.