Posts by goldencyclist60

I’m throwing it out there: we should move the Food & Nutrition subforum out of Gastronomy and tuck it under Health instead. I mean, nutrition science is literally a branch of medicine, right? It just makes more sense.
Hopefully you guys will listen to a young nutritionist's plea here. 🙂

slydriver52, you pretty much nailed most of that, but I gotta jump in on a few points and I definitely disagree with 😁.

First off, let’s clear something up for everyone regarding why we use more than one type of carb for recovery instead of just focusing on muscle vs. liver glycogen. It’s simple math: the max oxidation rate for just ONE type of carb is about 1 g/kg BM/h. But if you mix in a second type? You can bump that up to 1.3 g/kg BM/h.

Fructose gets tossed into athlete recovery drinks, but usually in small amounts—not sure of the exact ratio.

Jeukendrup and Jensen actually suggest a glucose:fructose:galactose ratio of 2(3):1:1.

It was therefore surprisingly observed that both the carbohydrate blend with fructose and the carbohydrate blend with galactose were two-fold more effective in stimulating glycogen synthesis than the proposed maltodextrin+glucose blend.

Glucose has high osmolality, so slamming huge amounts right after a workout isn't ideal.

That’s exactly why people prefer using maltodextrin (a glucose polymer) as the source—it cuts down on that osmotic load you get from plain old monomeric glucose.

In other sports like weightlifting, running, swimming, or football, diet isn't nearly as vital as the training itself. You gotta know how to train specifically for your sport to level up. Unlike bodybuilding, where your physique depends on diet first and then training methodology.

I can't stand that take. In elite sports, nutrition is what delivers that final 5-10% margin (take it with a grain of salt, it's an unverified rule of thumb). In any discipline—including bodybuilding—training comes first, and nutrition is the support system. Sure, in bodybuilding, nutrition carries more weight, but it still doesn't outrank the actual training.

all set, thanks 🙂

melloworca6 said:Why?

Look, this has been the deal since long before I even joined the forum. It belongs over there just as much as it does here, and since they’re the ones geeking out over food, it honestly makes more sense for that PDF to live on their thread.🙂

Well, since that's my field (nutritionist), I really hate seeing it lumped in with basic cooking. It's actual science, you know? Seeing it categorized under gastronomy feels a bit insulting...

hm... I gotta admit, I totally missed that one.

but still, does anyone else feel like healthy eating shouldn't really be lumped in under gastronomy?

I think we can all agree there’s a massive hole here for a dedicated "Proper Nutrition" subforum, right?
It feels totally wrong having these deep dives happening under Recreation...

velvetmoose9 said:Now you’ve actually got me curious... Alright, fine, draw me a diagram (or drop a link) showing how liver glycogen is made up of—according to you—fructose molecules instead of glucose... And which "cop" (enzyme) is blocking the creation of liver glycogen (which is about 10% of an average healthy person's total liver mass) from glucose just to "fill up liver glycogen (exclusively) with fructose"... Is it glycogenin, glycogen synthase, some "branching enzyme," or UDP-glucose pyrophosphorylase? Maybe you can explain this to a guy who gets nothing but 5%, 10%, or 20% glucose IV drips and has zero liver glycogen. Or wait, maybe he *does* have some, depending on how much glucose he takes in?... Give me some clarity here. Also, explain how massive amounts of fructose affect LDL levels and triglycerides (and how those impact cardiovascular and cerebrovascular incidents) and the rise in abdominal fat ("it's stupid to avoid it" ?????? )... So, in your view, someone who doesn't consume fructose has a liver that's 10% lighter than someone who does? These questions are simple, my ignorance is huge, and since you're such a nutrition expert, it shouldn't be hard to clear this up for me... I'm not questioning that fructose is a useful sugar for the body, but give me some references or an explanation for these claims...

First off, my bad for misstating the fact that liver glycogen is filled exclusively by fructose intake. That's not true. However, it's an undeniable fact that it gets filled way more effectively that way. According to this study, the amount of synthesized glycogen was four times higher after consuming fructose compared to glucose.

Also, please stop twisting my words—I never once said that liver glycogen is actually composed of fructose molecules.

To clarify:
Fructose also breaks down into pyruvate during glycolysis. It's converted into fructose-6-phosphate via hexokinase (an intermediate in glycolysis), or it's converted into fructose-1-phosphate, which then splits into dihydroxyacetone phosphate and glyceraldehyde. From there, glyceraldehyde is phosphorylated into glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate, another glycolytic intermediate.

As for the specific mechanism where fructose refills liver glycogen better than glucose, I'll admit I don't know anything beyond the fact that the liver converts ingested fructose into glucose.🤷

I actually just stumbled upon this patent where everything is laid out beautifully, and honestly, I learned something new from it.
Their ideal drink for replenishing glycogen (both muscle and liver) contains glucose, fructose, and galactose. Besides, Jeukendrup and Jentjens are basically the authorities in this field, so they're probably worth trusting.

The supposed negative health effects of fructose come from massive doses used in studies meant to "prove" it's bad—or even worse, studies done on rats (I remember one where rats were fed 60% of their daily energy from fructose. Helloooo?). Now tell me, how much are you actually taking in your post-workout meal if you're eating sucrose? 15g? You definitely take in more throughout the day from fruit, and lo and behold, fruit is recommended in large quantities. Hm...

Bottom line: the fear surrounding fructose is totally unjustified, and it's a legitimate part of a proper diet.

Walter White said:Yeah, I get it... but everyone’s out here acting like whey plus water is some magic potion. To me, it smells like a total marketing scam. Most of these supplements just survive on flashy ads or some random study done on mice. Anyways... I'm gonna hit the sack before my cocoa protein turns into a gut much.

And don't even get me started on L-carnitine. People swear by that too. They used to swear the Earth was flat, remember?

(some people still swear by God)

Bottom line: if you haven't figured it out yet, the gym and the people hanging out there are basically the headquarters for nutritional misinformation. It's mostly because everyone thinks they're an expert for no damn reason.

Night. 🙂

Walter White said:Look, I’m always mixing my whey with milk. Drinking it with water is just gross, and honestly? I couldn't care less about that "faster absorption" nonsense people obsess over. Who gives a damn about three extra seconds?😬
By the way, you got any links to actual scientific studies on absorption rates? I know everyone loves to throw around that "water is better than milk" argument, but honestly, it feels like people are just making stuff up as they go. Like, some random logic about how water has zero calories so it hits your system faster or whatever. I'm curious if anyone has actually run a real test on this—and if so, how did they even measure it?

I don't know if anyone’s ever actually tried using milk and water as a medium. Honestly, it's a non-starter. Milk is packed with proteins and other stuff that makes it fundamentally different from plain old water. You can't even compare them.

Look, if you match up the protein count and the carb types between both shakes, there shouldn't be any damn difference. I left fats out of this on purpose because they don't do squat for muscle synthesis or catabolism.

Yeah, exactly. Like I already laid out on my blog, faster absorption isn't always a win. It doesn't necessarily mean it's better.

Joshua Adams said:Same goes for all that extra sugar turning straight into fat—and I think we're all trying our best to dodge that bullet...

Wait, where exactly did you find this massive surplus of sugar?

p.s. This whole idea of sugar "converting" into fat is mostly a myth. What's actually happening when you overeat calories (doesn't matter where they come from) is that your body stops burning fat for fuel and starts prioritizing carbs instead. You end up storing way more fat than usual because your body chooses the easier path, not because of some magical "conversion" process. It's just metabolic laziness.

Joshua Adams said:Most folks switching to dextrose are just trying to dodge fructose... If you go with standard table sugar, you're getting both glucose and fructose anyway. Plus, you'd have to eat way more sugar just to get the same effect.

You're totally ignoring the fact that fructose fills up liver glycogen, which glucose doesn't touch.
Avoiding it is just plain stupid...

Walter White said:Since I’m already mixing my whey with milk anyway... that means I've got lactose (galactose and glucose) plus fructose in the mix. That's what I was getting at. Plus, if I just toss sugar into the milk, I'm looking at lactose plus sucrose, which ends up being three times the glucose... or am I totally tripping?

hm, my bad, didn't realize you were drinking it with milk. How much are we talking? Like a cup? If so, you're only getting about 10g of lactose, which breaks down into 5g of galactose and glucose. Compared to the 30g minimum you should be adding (depending on how hard you crush it in the gym), it's basically nothing.
Look, we haven't even touched on the fructose-to-glucose ratio yet—it doesn't strictly have to be 1:1. I don't know if anyone has actually run studies to find the "perfect" ratio, but in my experience, since liver glycogen stores aren't exactly massive, maybe more glucose would actually be better, like a 2:1 or 3:1 split. But honestly, that's just me guessing, and you'd probably only see a real difference if you were an elite pro athlete... so... cost-benefit analysis, right? 🙂

Walter White said:I follow Lyle McDonald too, and I used to keep an eye on Argonaut... but he posts on his blog so rarely that I actually ended up removing him from my reader...

Alex writes pretty short pieces compared to Lowe's, but he's posting almost every single day. He just grabs two or three studies, drops the links, and mashes together some possible conclusion—sometimes they're pretty open-ended where he admits you can't really prove much, but for the most part, it's solid stuff.

Anyway... back to proteins 😬

I'm actually reading this article about how fructose and glucose affect recovery. Honestly, the whole site is great, even if it looks like it was designed back in 2014... so I'm wondering... if the best combo is glucose + fructose, should I just go with adding white sugar to my whey shake? Or should I try getting glucose from milk (via lactose) plus some gummy bears from Disney? ;-)

D

Yeah, the design is... "minimalist," to put it mildly. 😁
Just toss some white sugar into your shake (doesn't have to be whey, I just posted a new article on the blog about different types of shakes) because it's the cheapest option and works just as well.
And why on earth would you even try to get glucose from lactose?! 😲

I wasn't really following. Personally, I’m a huge fan of how Lyle McDonald and Alan Aragon handle things. Much like them, I'm all about demystifying nutrition and pushing for a way more chill, flexible approach—which honestly ends up being way healthier in the long run.

Walter White said:Look, I'm not saying sugar is some kind of alien substance, but let's be real—we’re all shoving way more sugar into our bodies than we realize. It's not just the candy bars and sodas; it's hidden in all that "healthy" processed junk we grab on the go. That's why I hate the idea of adding another 30g of sugar if I don't absolutely have to. I mean, I'm probably not gonna drop dead tomorrow over it... but if I can dodge it, I will.

btw, I was poking around your blog for a bit... sounds good, but you're missing some actual data to back this stuff up. Not sure if you follow sweat science blog by Alex Hutchinson, but he writes stuff similar to this, except he actually links to the studies.

Don't sweat it, the info comes from actual research. I left out the citations on purpose because I wanted to keep things simple and easy to digest. That said, I might—and honestly, probably will—change my mind about adding them later on. 🙂

Walter White said:Look, I'm telling you... I never actually wanted to buy mass gainers, they just sounded too much like what I was trying to avoid... basically just protein mixed with a mountain of junk... but since the price tag is absolutely insane, I don't bother with them...

So, you're saying zero saccharin? Oof... and as for some "natural" alternative to cheap white sugar... honestly, I try to dodge that stuff as much as possible because I already eat way more crap than I should anyway. :-)

Why do people act like saccharin is some UNNATURAL monster? It's just as "natural" as half the other sugars out there, if not more. There’s really no reason to be terrified of it, especially if you're hitting the gym hard—working out helps balance out all the other garbage you eat. Sometimes you just need that hit (sure, glucose works too, but it's pricier and less efficient, so 😁 )

Walter White said:I'm all about chocolate milk after a long run. There’s plenty of research showing it works fine post-workout... honestly, I just don't feel like shoveling massive amounts of sugar down my throat when there's already too much of it everywhere else... plus, supplements aren't cheap. I mean, sure, some are just protein... but when you look at those mass gainers where you pay $200 for a couple of kilos—$100 and by the time you realize you need like eight meals because you have to chug three scoops with milk just to hit 300-500 calories, I'm out. It doesn't even last a week... and I'm not exactly trying to be a pro athlete here.

I still need to dig into this fructose and liver glycogen stuff... is it actually bad or what? Because before a half marathon, for example, I basically gorge myself to top off my glycogen stores... so that's the whole point. Unless this liver thing somehow tanks my performance. I only take protein and other junk to help with functional strength and muscle recovery for the next grind... I couldn't care less about bodybuilding.

Hehe, look, sugar is NECESSARY after training. If you aren't going to shovel it in, you're sabotaging your own recovery. You really only need the protein powders; mass gainers are a total scam where you're just paying a premium for sugar disguised as protein. My honest advice? Stay far away from them. If you want to put on size, just eat more throughout the day. No mass gainer is going to save you there.
There are two types of glycogen: muscle and liver. Muscle glycogen is way more abundant, but liver glycogen isn't negligible and definitely impacts your performance.

Walter White said:I'm wondering if anyone here has messed around with making their own whey-based supplement that’s loaded with carbs. Basically, I want to know what to mix in besides just glucose powder... or is that enough? Here's the deal: I want to whip up a shake specifically for carb-loading to fuel things like long runs, mountain biking, or climbing—whatever. I was thinking of using protein as a base, so it’s almost like a DIY mass gainer... maybe around 15-20g of protein and 45-60g of carbs with a tiny bit of fat. And look, I'm not trying to blow my budget on pre-made stuff; buying commercial brands is just a rip-off..

Honestly, protein powders are your cheapest bet if you know where to shop for them. Otherwise, just stick to milk or chocolate milk—they're solid choices. Also, don't bother hunting down specialized glucose powder; plain old table sugar works just as well, if not better. It breaks down into glucose and fructose at a 1:1 ratio, and since fructose helps replenish liver glycogen while glucose hits the muscles, it's actually a smarter move.
Long story short 🙂

ruggedpanther64 said:You can always find a way to get laid when you're out in the city......

besides, smoking is pretty much on par with using drugs.....except that if you're a smoker, your head stays relatively clear.....whereas drugs tend to send you into some kind of trance.....

and honestly, whether it's one or the other, we all end up in the same grave......there aren't really any rules to it......

How the hell does any of that have anything to do with the topic🙂?

Aha, so you're saying the nicotine probably just hangs out in the filter...?