fructose to glucose
- Thread starter ZMT
- Start date
Aaron's right. Fructose is first taken into the liver where it is converted into glucose and stored as glycogen. then it is released as the glycogen is broken down to maintain blood sugar levels.
I
imported_edziu
Guest
Which means that fructose is not a good sweetener for a recovery drink immediately after workout. . . but fruit is still good for you in the diet, so you should still have that apple a day.
Prosze bardzo.
[b said:
Prosze bardzo.
Blood&Iron
New Member
Adding a moderate amount of fructose to your postworkout shake IS a good idea--if you're bulking. Refilling liver glycogen puts one in the 'fed' state, which is necessary for optimal anabolism. I generally go with 10-20g (along with 100-200g or so of dextrose/maltodextrin) while bulking. It's probably better to skip if dieting, since being in the 'fed' state, unsurprisingly, inhibits lipolysis (read: fat mobilization).[b said:
I
imported_edziu
Guest
Your liver can pick up the dextrose and maltodextrin as well. . . it's not like the liver will reject dextrose if fructose is available, will it? So by adding fructose, you're just pushing the balance toward liver. Sticking with dextrose/malto hits everything.[b said:
I
imported_edziu
Guest
Jestem polak urodzony w Ameryce. Umie po polsku, ale troche mi slabo, bo nie mam zadnych kolegow ktorzy rozmawiaja po polsku.[b said:
I
imported_edziu
Guest
Do you know his reasoning? Lyle ideas are usually good ideas.[b said:Quote[/b] (ZMT @ Jan. 08 2003,6:21)]BTW Lyle also mentioned it will be good idea to add little fructose (10-20g) to post workout drink
Was he telling someone it's not bad to add a little fructose, or was he saying it's a good thing to do?
Blood&Iron
New Member
Can you give a good reason for why this very moderate amount of fructose (10-20g) would be bad, if not dieting? Lyle gives quite a good reason why it should be included, which I've already explained.[b said:Quote[/b] (Gene @ Jan. 09 2003,12)]
Bad idea. Fructose post-workout is superfluous and deleterious.[b said:Quote[/b] (ZMT @ Jan. 08 2003,4:21)]BTW Lyle also mentioned it will be good idea to add little fructose (10-20g) to post workout drink <!--emo&
First of all, fructose is not insulogenic. A small fraction of glucose (20% if I remember correctly) replenishes liver glycogen as well, but I I said that fructose was 'superfluous' and deleterious in this regard because the stimulation of liver glycogen formation exerts a suppressive effect on fat oxidation.
I just see no good reasons to purposely add it, dieting or not. It's true that most of the "evil" factors are present when fructose is taken in high amounts, and exacerbated when it is taken alone, but when using it as sweetener, obtaining it from fruits, we tend to get enough.
Some of the indirect mechanisms by which fructose results in added weight gain is perhaps why it is added in small (sometimes, not so small) amounts in weight gainers.
The reasons for why it is added to performance drinks like Gatorade should be quite obvious, and have nothing to do with performance.
RE: what you had written before you edited your post
I'm sorry you feel that way. It's not reflective of my current sentiments, but also not reflective of my past sentiments at the time. It was just a comment out of frustration, and if you re-read carefully (without the preconceived notion implied previously) you'd notice my reasons. In some aspects, I do admit that I was wrong, and have admitted this to some people who have brought it up with my privately. But I still think that it has no bearing on the correctness on what I say now or in the future, and I am within my rights to questions anything and anyone I want so long as it has basis in substance. I'll send you a PM when I get home if you still have issue with it.
Kind regards
Gene
I just see no good reasons to purposely add it, dieting or not. It's true that most of the "evil" factors are present when fructose is taken in high amounts, and exacerbated when it is taken alone, but when using it as sweetener, obtaining it from fruits, we tend to get enough.
Some of the indirect mechanisms by which fructose results in added weight gain is perhaps why it is added in small (sometimes, not so small) amounts in weight gainers.
The reasons for why it is added to performance drinks like Gatorade should be quite obvious, and have nothing to do with performance.
RE: what you had written before you edited your post
I'm sorry you feel that way. It's not reflective of my current sentiments, but also not reflective of my past sentiments at the time. It was just a comment out of frustration, and if you re-read carefully (without the preconceived notion implied previously) you'd notice my reasons. In some aspects, I do admit that I was wrong, and have admitted this to some people who have brought it up with my privately. But I still think that it has no bearing on the correctness on what I say now or in the future, and I am within my rights to questions anything and anyone I want so long as it has basis in substance. I'll send you a PM when I get home if you still have issue with it.
Kind regards
Gene
Blood&Iron
New Member
I still don't see how what you've said here is a counter-argument to using fructose postworkout. Whether it's insulinogenic is irrelevant. Yeah, it'd be retarded to use as the sole CHO source postworkout, but it's much more efficient (something like 4x) at restoring liver glycogen than glucose. Provided one limits his workout to an hour, he will not significantly deplete liver glycogen, but it will be depleted. Using 10-20g of fructose will ensure that it's 'topped-off' and that one is in the fed state (a powerful signal for anabolism.) Again, what deleterious effect would you posit for such a (relatively) minute amount of the stuff?[b said:
As to what I had written prior to editing, I realize it was somewhat unfair. That's the reason I changed it. I do feel you sometimes argue just for the sake of arguing, however. And let's admit, you do not hold Lyle McDonald in very high regard. Of course, I like to argue for the sake of arguing myself; I think John Berardi is a moron. So, we are not so different. I have no problem whatsoever in questioning either Haycock or McDonald, but I still personally think it can be done a bit more respectfully. Even I approach some of the things they say with scepticism, but, fundamentally, I think both men have an enormous knowledge base, are extremely intelligent, and when I disagree, I first look for the error in my own thinking before I look it in theirs. BTW, I apologize if the previous post was out of line. Again, that's why I edited it.
Aside from sweetness, mass-marketting to the non-athletic general public, low on the GI, and with low sugar concentration of the drinks (has to do with the fluid absorption efficiency) suggests that some fructose is needed to replenish some of liver glycogen because there is not enough glucose to do the job. Endurance-type exertions in a glycogen depleted state can lead to some serious, adverse affects -- gatorade emerged in response to this. That's my take on it, atleast. There are studies, though, that show gatorade to have no effect on power output in semi-lengthy endurance sessions.
_
Keeping the liver in the 'fed state' ? Intense training depletes liver glycogen almost entirely, and 10-20g of fructose will not keep it fed. The liver holds 90-100g. If you refer to the 'fed state' as partially replenished, then I'll recapitulate the fact that the glucose can do just that.
Would you please cite a reference for the supposed 'anabolic increase' to which you keep referring? Also, please, more specifically define the context for this anabolic response.
_
I agrue issues that affect my every-day training, nutrition, and curiosity. I try to research most of my posts; the whole process of doing so is educational to me. I research an issue, I make a post -- I learn something, someone else gets an answer to their question -- if I'm wrong, so what? Someone mentions that I'm wrong, and I have to research the issue again -- more cerebral stimulation. That's all this is, for me. I never make mention of my knowledge or that of someone elses.
See it, do it, teach it. That's the learning paradigm that has worked best for me.
Have you ever taken debate classes? Sometimes you are given short notice to debate on issues you are not familiar with, and/or forced to take sides with which you may not necessarilly agree. The whole process is highly conducive to learning.
I do critique ideas and interpretations, however, unless they are irrefraggably supported by the literature. I don't hold too many people in any regard (high or low). Many people's knowledge base cannot be corroborated if a majority of it's manifestation takes the form of articles that take time to prepare, with exceptions. It's not that hard to comb the literature. Effort and meticulosity would be the more appropriate terms. Perspicacity is somewhat harder to measure, and can be faked (and no, I'm not alluding to anyone in particular).
Gene
_
Keeping the liver in the 'fed state' ? Intense training depletes liver glycogen almost entirely, and 10-20g of fructose will not keep it fed. The liver holds 90-100g. If you refer to the 'fed state' as partially replenished, then I'll recapitulate the fact that the glucose can do just that.
Would you please cite a reference for the supposed 'anabolic increase' to which you keep referring? Also, please, more specifically define the context for this anabolic response.
_
I agrue issues that affect my every-day training, nutrition, and curiosity. I try to research most of my posts; the whole process of doing so is educational to me. I research an issue, I make a post -- I learn something, someone else gets an answer to their question -- if I'm wrong, so what? Someone mentions that I'm wrong, and I have to research the issue again -- more cerebral stimulation. That's all this is, for me. I never make mention of my knowledge or that of someone elses.
See it, do it, teach it. That's the learning paradigm that has worked best for me.
Have you ever taken debate classes? Sometimes you are given short notice to debate on issues you are not familiar with, and/or forced to take sides with which you may not necessarilly agree. The whole process is highly conducive to learning.
I do critique ideas and interpretations, however, unless they are irrefraggably supported by the literature. I don't hold too many people in any regard (high or low). Many people's knowledge base cannot be corroborated if a majority of it's manifestation takes the form of articles that take time to prepare, with exceptions. It's not that hard to comb the literature. Effort and meticulosity would be the more appropriate terms. Perspicacity is somewhat harder to measure, and can be faked (and no, I'm not alluding to anyone in particular).
Gene