Why Wai dieters have to eat 20 meals a day

moved from 1 up by mods, once they've proved to contain interesting discussions
B-Rad
Posts: 73
https://cutt.ly/meble-kuchenne-wroclaw
Joined: Tue 18 Dec 2007 04:47

Post by B-Rad »

sungvimil wrote:how on earth can fructose cause decreased caloric intake?
It doesn't.
sungvimil wrote:Ehrr????¿¿¿!!!!The studies show the opposite.
Nah, you just don't comprehend the studies you post.
sungvimil wrote:How can they be having more meals when in fact their caloric intake was significantly reduced after fructose consumption vs. other carbs???
It wasn't
sungvimil wrote:Please post them. And not animal studies, post human studies done in metabolic wards, not from obese individuas fed fructose vs. glucose on top of their crappy diet.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1940 ... rom=pubmed

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1755 ... d_RVDocSum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1819 ... rom=pubmed

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1806 ... d_RVDocSum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1940 ... d_RVDocSum
sungvimil wrote:I also posted other studies showing benefits of fructose in HUMANS, that you didn´t address.
Yea, I don't address irrelevant info.
sungvimil wrote:If fructose is so bad
The only thing that's bad is your reading comprehension and logical analysis capabilities.
johndela1 wrote:I know you told me you have followed the diet.

What did a typical day's food intake look like for you? I'm curious to how you followed the diet. If the ideas here are correct you should have experienced all this for your self already. How strictly did you follow the diet and for how long?
What else would it look like lol? All you can eat is juice/fruit and a little meat.
I followed it long enough to experience it's effects; some good, some bad as you already know. Then experimented around with it as I always do.
User avatar
Oscar
Administrator
Posts: 4350
Joined: Mon 15 Aug 2005 00:01

Post by Oscar »

B-Rad wrote:The only thing that's bad is your reading comprehension and logical analysis capabilities.
You've been asked before to refrain from getting personal. I'm warning you that the next personal attack will result in a ban.
summerwave
Posts: 274
Joined: Sat 13 Sep 2008 22:47

fructose revisited

Post by summerwave »

I still do not understand the interpretation of the diet as being uniformly (in all cases) high in fructose.

It depends greatly upon which fruits are available to you.

Many or most tropical fruits, for example, are largely sucrose, with a low concentration of fructose (relatively).

Some non-fruits, like carrots I think from my notes, have more fructose or other monosaccharides than many fruits. Fruits like figs, kiwifruit, cherries (fruits hard to find and eat in quantity in many regions, as they are so small and difficult to ship and ripen properly) are on the other hand relatively high in fructose.

It is possible for one person to eat a relatively low-fructose version of this diet, quite unintentionally and not by design, and another (like me), to eat as much or more than 50% of the carbohydrate in this diet in the form of fructose, in my case quite deliberately, but taking no special precautions. Again, if one eats mainly pineapples, pears, durian, etc, one is mostly eating sucrose.

So I do not understand how blanket statements about the danger (or benefit even) of fructose can apply to this diet. It varies GREATLY.
summerwave
Posts: 274
Joined: Sat 13 Sep 2008 22:47

sucrose

Post by summerwave »

For example, a navel orange with 12g sugar contains 3g fructose, 3g glucose, and 6g sucrose. If you make orange juice with this and add table sugar and oil (as included in this diet), the fructose content is probably 20%.

If you take low-sugar fruits and juice them (like cucumber), and add sucrose for sugars, it is even less.

You might take sugars like this all day long, then in the evening, eat raw protein like salmon or egg, and a low-sugar-fruit salad like tomato/cucumber/avocado.

But I don't know, even given the above, how much is "too much" if you are frightened by fructose. In that case, eating any fruit at all might be difficult for you to accept, whether it is a high-fructose or low-fructose type fruit.
johndela1
Posts: 968
Joined: Fri 31 Mar 2006 03:54
Location: Portland, OR
Contact:

Post by johndela1 »

B-Rad wrote: What else would it look like lol? All you can eat is juice/fruit and a little meat.
I followed it long enough to experience it's effects; some good, some bad as you already know.
It seems like your reading comprehension has failed you if you think the diet is only juice/fruit and a little meat. There is more too it than that. I'm wondering if you are looking for answers or just trolling for an argument. This is becoming a waste of time for the people responding to you.
B-Rad wrote: then experimented around with it as I always do.
What should I be getting out of this statement? I have no idea what you 'always do'.
sungvimil
Posts: 26
Joined: Wed 16 May 2007 14:18

Post by sungvimil »

I'm wondering if you are looking for answers or just trolling for an argument. This is becoming a waste of time for the people responding to you.
True. B-Rad is just trolling for an argument. With responses like this one he is showing that he only wants to waste our time:

I said: ¨I also posted other studies showing benefits of fructose in HUMANS, that you didn´t address.

He answered: ¨Yea, I don't address irrelevant info.¨

So B-Rad considers his opinion as fact, and he doesn´t explain why the studies I post are irrelevant and the ones he posted are relevant. He already decided what he wants to believe about fructose, and we are not going to be able to change that, no matter how big are the contradictions behind the theory ¨Fructose is bad¨.
summerwave
Posts: 274
Joined: Sat 13 Sep 2008 22:47

fructose

Post by summerwave »

Yes; and I think that if one is afraid to consume it at all, one will have to avoid all fruit, even low-sugar fruit like tomatoes, most or all vegetables including beets, carrots, onions and many, many more, and honey.

It doesn't seem to make for a very good diet. Maybe rice, lettuce, and fish?
summerwave
Posts: 274
Joined: Sat 13 Sep 2008 22:47

fructose-free

Post by summerwave »

Actually, grapefruit, kumquat, and lemons could be on the menu too (sour, low-sugar fruits). :shock:
B-Rad
Posts: 73
Joined: Tue 18 Dec 2007 04:47

Post by B-Rad »

Oscar wrote:
B-Rad wrote:The only thing that's bad is your reading comprehension and logical analysis capabilities.
You've been asked before to refrain from getting personal.
Nothing personal in a self-evident statement
johndela1 wrote: It seems like your reading comprehension has failed you if you think the diet is only juice/fruit and a little meat. There is more too it than that. I'm wondering if you are looking for answers or just trolling for an argument. This is becoming a waste of time for the people responding to you.
I won't take this as personal either, lol.

http://www.waicure.com/acnesamplediet.html
The Diet

fresh fruits
olive oil
an avocado/tomato/cucumber salad
raw fish/egg yolks
“The zeal which begins with hypocrisy must conclude in treachery; at first it deceives, at last it betrays” - Francis Bacon
johndela1 wrote:
B-Rad wrote: then experimented around with it as I always do.
What should I be getting out of this statement? I have no idea what you 'always do'.
To never limit yourself through the formation of bias and dependancy. Freedom comes only to the free.
sungvimil wrote:So B-Rad considers his opinion as fact, and he doesn´t explain why the studies I post are irrelevant and the ones he posted are relevant.
Right, no studies showing fructose doesn't knock out satiety hormones or decrease satiety= irrelevant
sungvimil wrote:behind the theory ¨Fructose is bad¨.
i'll just pretend I never saw this
User avatar
RRM
Administrator
Posts: 8164
Joined: Sat 16 Jul 2005 00:01
Contact:

Post by RRM »

B-Rad,

Your replies somehow rarely correspond with the questions that you answer,
and you constantly go off topic, even when answering very specific questions.
So, lets once more go back to where this all started.
Your claim:
B-Rad wrote:Why Wai dieters have to eat 20 meals a day
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15181085
Fructose basically knocks out satiety hormones making you feel hungry all the time.
The study that you link to does not say that.
What does it say?
Meals high in fructose resulted in 1/3 lower leptin concentrations than meals high in glucose,
and high fructose meals also did not nearly suppress ghrelin as much as high glucose meals did.

So, what does this mean?
That the high fructose meals cause significantly less satiety than high glucose meals.
LESS satiety
It does not say that the satiety hormones are knocked out.
No, it says the opposite, in both cases.
It says that both meals caused satiety, but the high fructose meals did so to a lesser extend.

Your claim is that this is "why Wai dieters have to eat 20 meals a day", but the study is about the comparison between high glucose and high fructose meals.
The Wai diet is both:
the Wai diet is BOTH high in glucose AND high in fructose (The free glucose in fruits causes immediate satiety)
The study is about high glucose VERSUS high fructose.
Do you recognize the discrepancy between BOTH...AND >> and << VERSUS ??
B-Rad
Posts: 73
Joined: Tue 18 Dec 2007 04:47

Post by B-Rad »

RRM wrote:B-Rad,Your replies somehow rarely correspond with the questions that you answer, and you constantly go off topic, even when answering very specific questions.
Any reply to a red herring will be off topic
RRM wrote:What does it say?
Meals high in fructose resulted in 1/3 lower leptin concentrations than meals high in glucose,
and insulin
RRM wrote:and high fructose meals also did not nearly suppress ghrelin as much as high glucose meals did.
you want ghrelin to be suppressed since it's a hunger stimulating hormone. lol
RRM wrote:LESS satiety
It does not say that the satiety hormones are knocked out.
No, it says the opposite, in both cases.
It says that both meals caused satiety, but the high fructose meals did so to a lesser extend.
I'm glad you have finally accepted it
User avatar
RRM
Administrator
Posts: 8164
Joined: Sat 16 Jul 2005 00:01
Contact:

Post by RRM »

B-Rad wrote:you want ghrelin to be suppressed since it's a hunger stimulating hormone.
ALL meals suppress ghrelin.
Only the extend differs.
You dont want MAXIMUM suppression, because you want ghrelin suppressed
to the extend that it precisely matches your energy intake and expenditure.
Its a delicate balance.
A natural mix of glucose and fructose will provide you with the ghrelin suppression that you need.
B-Rad
Posts: 73
Joined: Tue 18 Dec 2007 04:47

Post by B-Rad »

RRM wrote:Only the extend differs.
You dont want MAXIMUM suppression, because you want ghrelin suppressed
to the extend that it precisely matches your energy intake and expenditure.
Its a delicate balance.
Fructose differs in this regard from all other foods though... and wreaks havoc. Why not accept it?
User avatar
Oscar
Administrator
Posts: 4350
Joined: Mon 15 Aug 2005 00:01

Post by Oscar »

I think this discussion has outlived its usefulness, so I'm closing the thread. If people feel otherwise, pm me or reopen the thread (if you can).
User avatar
RRM
Administrator
Posts: 8164
Joined: Sat 16 Jul 2005 00:01
Contact:

Post by RRM »

B-Rad wrote:Fructose differs in this regard from all other foods though...
Fructose is not a food. Its a nutrient.
All nutrients differ from another with regards to satiety and insulin.
Most trace elements do not elicit any satiety. Does that make them bad?
Of course not.
and wreaks havoc. Why not accept it?
You started this thread with claiming that fructose 'knocks out the satiety hormones'.
This is NOT supported by the studies that you cite, or any other study.
You just want to believe fructose is bad. So be it.

During all these pages of this thread you have not been able to show us anything that might remotely come close to somewhat supportive of your claim.
So, this case is closed.
Locked