Best protein powders for muscle gain?

It’s all quite obvious, really... yet everyone seems to swear by this whole whey plus water routine, which strikes me as nothing more than a blatant marketing gimmick. In my estimation, most of these supplement companies survive solely on clever advertising or studies performed on mice. Anyway... I’m off to bed before my cocoa protein turns into belly fat.

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:I get what you're saying... but it seems like everyone everywhere swears by mixing whey with just water, which honestly feels like nothing more than a clever marketing ploy. Isn't it true that most of these products rely on flashy ads or studies conducted solely on mice? Anyway... I think I'll head to bed before my cocoa protein turns into belly fat.

What kind of real advantage is there if you simply choose to use water or milk instead? You should just take whatever you feel works best for you. Even if some study comes out claiming water is superior, won't people still reach for milk just because they prefer the taste? At the end of the day, isn't it all just a matter of personal preference, where every individual should be free to make their own choice?

Joshua Adams said:What kind of actual benefit is there if you're just mixing it with water or milk? Honestly, just take whatever you think works best. Even if some fancy study comes out claiming water is superior, someone is still going to stick with milk just because they prefer the taste. It all comes down to personal preference; people should just decide for themselves.

The practical issue is this: if you're constantly mixing whey with water, you have to consume a higher volume just to hit your daily protein targets. You end up drinking more often, buying more frequently... it's a constant cycle.

goldencyclist60 said:you’re totally ignoring the fact that fructose replenishes liver glycogen, which glucose just doesn't do.
avoiding it is just plain stupid...

Well, now you've actually got me curious... Alright, why don't you draw me a little diagram—maybe drop a link—showing how liver glycogen is made up of (according to you) fructose molecules instead of glucose... And who exactly is this "policeman" (that enzyme you're hinting at) that stops glucose from forming liver glycogen (which, mind you, makes up about 10% of the total mass of an average healthy person's liver) and insists on "filling liver glycogen (exclusively) with fructose"... Is it glycogenin, glycogen synthase, some kind of "branching enzyme," or maybe UDP-glucose pyrophosphorylase? Maybe you could walk me through this, specifically for someone who gets nothing but 5%, 10%, or 20% glucose IV drips for "food" and somehow lacks liver glycogen. Or, wait, maybe they actually *do* have it, depending on how much glucose is being pumped in?... Give me a bit of a breakdown on how high doses of fructose actually impact LDL levels and triglycerides over the long haul (and how those things play into cardiovascular and cerebrovascular incidents), not to mention the spike in visceral fat ("it's stupid to avoid it" ?????? )... In your view, does someone who avoids fructose end up with a liver that's 10% lighter than someone who consumes it?... These are pretty straightforward questions, and while I'm clearly no expert, it shouldn't be too much trouble for a nutrition guru like yourself to clear things up... Look, I'm not questioning that fructose can be a useful sugar for the body, but I'd love to see some references or just hear your actual reasoning behind these claims...

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.

Fructose is typically blended into athlete recovery drinks in small amounts—I don't recall the exact ratio—but glucose and maltose always take center stage. The data shows that a specific carbohydrate combination is the gold standard for an athlete's post-workout glycogen recovery. However, the playbook changes for bodybuilding and fitness enthusiasts. Since their primary goal is hypertrophy rather than rapid glycogen replenishment, they lean heavily toward maltose, glucose, or even insulin manipulation to drive growth.
It’s common knowledge that glucose and maltodextrin trigger the pancreas to spike insulin production. This makes them the go-to choice immediately following a session. That said, glucose has higher osmolality, so you have to be careful about consuming massive quantities right after training. Ultimately, your carb source depends entirely on your discipline. Since most people here are recreational lifters focused on building muscle—rather than marathon runners, swimmers, or soccer players—glucose and maltodextrin are your best bets. If you aren't chasing extreme muscle mass, you don't need to overcomplicate things; a simple chocolate milk will do the trick just fine.
As I’ve pointed out before, nutrition is the absolute foundation in aesthetic sports like bodybuilding. In contrast, for strength athletes, runners, or swimmers, the training methodology itself takes precedence. You build elite performance through specialized programming; in bodybuilding, you build the physique through nutrition first, then refine it with training.

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.

goldencyclist60 said:slydriver52, you nailed most of that, but I have to build on a few points and I definitely disagree on others.😁.

First, let’s clear up why we use more than one type of carbohydrate for recovery, beyond just the difference in muscle vs. liver glycogen storage. It comes down to oxidation rates. The maximum oxidation rate for a single type of carb is roughly 1 g/kg of lean body mass per hour. By adding a second type, you can push that up to 1.3 g/kg.

Jeukamp and Jensen 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.

That is why maltodextrin (a glucose polymer) is preferred as a glucose source; it lowers the osmotic load that plain monomeric glucose creates.

I cannot agree with this at all. In elite athletics, precise nutrition accounts for maybe that final 5-10% margin—and that's being generous. In any discipline, including bodybuilding, training is the foundation; nutrition is the support system. Sure, in bodybuilding, the diet carries more weight, but it still doesn't supersede the training itself.

I’ll give you a quick answer because I’m heading to work.
The reason you disagree is simple: you clearly haven't dealt with the intensity of training specifically for competition. If I can grab a burger and still crush an elite-level workout, then "perfect" nutrition isn't my priority. I think you misunderstood me; I never said nutrition isn't important, I said *perfect* nutrition isn't nearly as critical for certain athletes. Training takes precedence—I've proven that myself. When you're building peak performance (strength, explosiveness, endurance, agility, etc.), strict dieting matters less than it does for a bodybuilder. Your main concern is managing caloric intake so you don't ruin your conditioning by gaining unnecessary mass. What exactly is on your plate matters far less than hitting your daily calorie targets, provided you watch your pre- and post-workout meals. Of course, genetics play a huge role too. It’s not that black and white. ..........................
We could debate this until tomorrow.
Besides, I’ll have a beer before bed to help my muscles relax; it works wonders when I'm exhausted. 😉
My performance improves week after week without a "perfect" diet.

slydriver52 said:Gotta make this quick because I'm rushing to work.
Look, you disagree with me because clearly you haven't dealt with the grind of training for actual competition. If I can crush a couple of bacon cheeseburgers and still kill it in the gym, then "perfect" nutrition isn't my thing. I think you missed my point—I never said food doesn't matter, I just meant that "perfect" eating isn't nearly as vital for athletes. Training is what counts; I've proven that myself. When you're trying to build strength, explosiveness, endurance, agility, or speed, you don't need to eat like a bodybuilder. You just gotta watch your calories so you don't get heavy and sluggish. What you actually eat matters way less than just hitting your daily intake, except for those pre- and post-workout meals. Of course, genetics plays a huge role too... it's not that simple..........................
We could debate this until tomorrow.
Besides, I even have a beer before bed to relax my muscles—helps a ton when I'm wiped out. 😉
My conditioning keeps improving week after week, even without some strict diet.

I don't know if you realize this, but burgers and beer actually have a place in a balanced diet... a "proper" diet isn't just defined by specific ingredients.
And besides, I don't see how you're saying anything different here, because it looks like we're basically on the same page?

goldencyclist60 said:I’m not sure if you realize this, but burgers and beer actually have a place in a balanced diet... A "proper" diet isn't defined solely by the specific foods we eat.
Besides, I don't see how your point differs from mine here, since it seems we're essentially on the same page.

By "proper," I’m referring specifically to diets tailored for muscle hypertrophy—the kind most weekend warriors at the local Gold's Gym follow—as well as fat loss protocols.
We mostly agree. I’ve done some reading, including your blog.
I have no desire to debate nutrition with you since you’re the professional here, but I will point out that nothing is black and white. You can't just tell someone to load up on sucrose after a workout without knowing their specific goals or their discipline. We know glycogen depletion during standard hypertrophy training isn't massive; if a trainee wants to maximize mass, they're better off with maltodextrin or glucose to trigger an insulin response, rather than just trying to rapidly refill glycogen stores, which isn't even necessary. Nutrition depends on the athlete's goals, genetics, the sport itself, and their current training phase. It is impossible to give a blanket recommendation on what anyone needs and in what quantity.
Timing is also critical. If I can afford to grab a cheeseburger before a session, that doesn't mean a marathon runner or a competitive swimmer can do the same without facing major GI distress. They might be able to handle it two hours post-workout, or perhaps during a carb-loading phase before a race, but certainly not as their final meal before competing.

slydriver52 said:When I say "proper" nutrition, I’m talking about the kind of diet most gym rats follow when they're trying to pack on muscle or cut fat.
Most of us are on the same page here. I’ve even done some reading and checked out your blog.
Look, I don't want to get into a heavy debate with you since this is your professional field, but let's be real—it's never just black and white. You can't just tell someone to load up on Glycemic index and by-products of sucrose Sucrose right after a workout without knowing their specific goals or what kind of athlete they are. We all know glycogen depletion during a standard hypertrophy session isn't actually that massive. If a regular guy wants to build muscle post-workout, he's better off hitting the maltodextrin or glucose for that insulin spike, rather than worrying about fast glycogen replenishment because, frankly, it's not necessary. Nutrition depends on everything: goals, genetics, the sport, training phase, etc. It's impossible to give a one-size-fits-all answer for what anyone needs and how much.
Timing matters too. If I can swing a greasy cheeseburger before a workout, it doesn't mean a marathon runner or a swimmer can do the same without ending up with a wrecked stomach. They might be able to eat that stuff maybe two hours after training, or during a carb-loading phase before a big event, but definitely not as their last meal before a race.

I'm with you on most of that, but... 😁
Of course it's not black and white—that's exactly my point.
And regarding bodybuilding and insulin: you don't need an insane spike to effectively shut down muscle protein breakdown after training. Even a moderate amount of Glycemic index and by-products of sucrose Sucrose does the trick. Plain glucose isn't going to magically do anything more.
And yeah, "optimal" hypertrophy dieting isn't wildly different from the athletic diets I personally advocate for. The issue is that the current bodybuilding scene is totally warped. Look at any typical bodybuilder's routine and there's a good chance it's far from optimal for their actual goal. The reality—which proves my point—is that plenty of these guys succeed *in spite* of their diet, not because of it. Training is still king.

goldencyclist60 said:I agree with the bulk of what you said, but... 😁
of course it isn't black and white; that's exactly my point.
As for bodybuilding and insulin, the spike required to maximally inhibit muscle protein catabolism following training doesn't need to be abnormally high. It happens even with moderate amounts of Glycemic index and by-products of sucrose Sucrose. Glucose alone won't achieve anything more.
And yeah, a proper diet aimed at hypertrophy doesn't actually differ drastically from the kind of athlete's diet I personally advocate for. The issue is that current practices are incredibly skewed. Look at almost any bodybuilder's regimen, and chances are it isn't actually optimal for their specific goals. The fact remains—which supports my argument that training takes precedence—that many have succeeded DESPITE their diet, not BECAUSE of it.

Even if we assume your premise is correct—though I'm not entirely convinced—there's a second issue: fructose, which is baked into table sugar. While glucose sits at 100, Glycemic index and by-products of sucrose Sucrose has a GI of 65. Because of its glycemic load, sucrose has a noticeably lower GI, but you run into the fructose problem, which can drive fat tissue accumulation.
Glycemic index and by-products of sucrose

Sucrose is a disaccharide made up of 50% glucose and 50% fructose and has a moderately high glycemic index of 64, about the same as honey, 62, but not nearly that of maltose, which is a disaccharide made up of 100% glucose (i.e., 2 parts glucose), 105,[23] which, in turn, causes an immediate response within the body's digestive system. As with other sugars, sucrose is digested into its components via the enzyme sucrase; to glucose (blood sugar) and fructose. The glucose component is transported into the blood (90%) and excess glucose is converted to temporary storage in the liver - named glycogen. The fructose is either bonded to cellulose and transported out the GI tract or processed by the liver into citrates, aldehydes, and, for the most part, lipid droplets (fat).

I'm pulling this from here because I can't be bothered to hunt for more, and it seems sufficient given the references:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sucrose

fructose is the real issue here when it comes to packing on the fat

Look, if you're slamming massive amounts—stuff you could never actually hit through a regular diet—you might see your blood triglycerides spike, but that doesn't mean you're automatically gaining fat. It’s simple math: too many calories leads to fat gain. Period.

Sucrose has a GI of 65 while glucose sits at 100

First off, GI is totally irrelevant here. What matters is insulin response, which depends on quantity. You need to look at GL—the glycemic load—which is basically what GI means once you factor in how much you're actually eating. And second, like I said before, even a small amount can be enough to trigger the pancreas to dump enough insulin to basically shut down catabolism.

The fructose is either bonded to cellulose and transported out the GI tract or processed by the liver into citrates, aldehydes, and, for the most part, lipid droplets (fat).

And see? There isn't a single reference for that claim (and I think there's a good reason why)...

Instead, check this out: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21108071. It's one of the more recent reviews...
Notice that they're talking about NORMAL intake...

References 1. ^ Sucrose

References 1. ^ Sucrose, International Chemical Safety card 1507, Geneva: International Programme on Chemical Safety, November 2003
2.^ a b C "Sugar : World Markets and trade". United States Department of Agriculture. November 2011.
3.^ A. Beevers, T. R. R. McDonald, J. H. Robertson and F. Stern (1952). "The crystal structure of sucrose". Acta Cryst 5 (5): 689–690. doi:10.1107/S0365110X52001908.
4.^ Hynes, R. C.; Le Page, Y. (1991). "Sucrose, a convenient test crystal for absolute structures". Journal of Applied Crystallography 24 (4): 352. doi:10.1107/S0021889891002492.
5.^ "Sucrase", encyclopædia Britannica Online
online 6. ^ Lemieux, R. U.; Huber, G. (1953). "A chemical synthesis of sucrose". J. am. Chem. Soc. 75 (16): 4118. doi:10.1021/ja01112a545.
References 1. ^ a b Sidney Mintz (1986). Sweetness and Power : The Place of Sugar in Modern history. Penguin. ISBN 978-0-14-009233-2.
8.^ a b Taubes, Gary. (April 13, 2011). is Sugar Toxic ?. The New York Times.
Gray GM (1971). "Intestinal Digestion and Maldigestion of Dietary Carbohydrate". Annual Review of medicina 22: 391–404. doi:10.1146/annurev.me.22.020171.002135. PMID 4944426.
^ ten Kaneko JJ. Carbohydrate metabolism and its diseases. in Kaneko JJ, Harvey JW, Bruss ml. Clinical Biochemistry of Domestic Animals, San Diego, CA: Academic Press (2008) p. 46 ISBN 012370491.
^ ten, Svetlana; Maclaren, Noel (2004). "Insulin resistance syndrome in children". J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab. 89 (6): 2526–39. doi:10.1210/jc.2004-0276. PMID 15181020.
Alexander Aguilera, Alfonso; Hernández Díaz, Guillermo; Lara Barcelata, Martín; Angulo Guerrero, Ofelia; Oliart Ros, rosa M. (2004). "Effects of fish oil on hypertension, plasma lipids, and tumor necrosis factor-alpha in rats with sucrose-induced metabolic syndrome". J. Nutr. Biochem. 15 (6): 350–57. doi:10.1016/j.jnutbio.2003.12.008. PMID 15157941.
^ Fukuchi, Satoshi; Hamaguchi, Kazuyuki; Seike, Masataka; Himeno, Katsuro; Sakata, Toshiie; Yoshimatsu, Hironobu (2004). "rola of Fatty Acid Composition in The Development of Metabolic Disorders in Sucrose-Induced Obese Rats". Exp. Biol. Med. 229 (6): 486–93. PMID 15169967.
14.^ Long-term administration of a sucrose-rich diet to normal rats : relationship between metabolic and hormonal profiles and morphological changes in The endocrine pancreas Chicco Fainstein-Day Gutman R. ; Gagliardino J. J. Gomez Dumm C. L. (1996). Metabolism 45 (12): 1527–32. doi:10.1016/S0026-0495(96)90183-3. PMID 8969287.
15.^ Joint Who / FAO Expert Consultation, 2003, "Who Technical report Series 916 Diet, Nutrition and The Prevention of Chronic Diseases", Geneva
Geneva 16. ^ Diet , Nutrition and The prevention of dental Diseases, Paul Moynihan, Who Collaborating centar for Nutrition and Oral health, School of dental sciences, University of Newcastle and Poul Erik Petersen, Who Collaborating centar for Community Oral health Programmes and research, University of Copenhagen, Public health Nutrition: 7(1A), 201–226
17.^ "Pure, White and Deadly", John Yudkin, Viking, 1986 ISBN 0-14-008353-7.
18.^ Yudkin J, Roddy J. (1964). "Levels of dietary sucrose in patients with occlusive atherosclerotic disease". Lancet 2: 6–8.
19.^ "What causes tooth decay?". Animated-teeth.com. Retrieved 2010-05-05.
20.^ Tooth Decay. Elmhurst.edu. Retrieved on 2011-11-18.
21.^ What causes tooth decay?. Animated-teeth.com. Retrieved on 2011-11-18.
22.^ Tanzer, JM (1979 Aug). "Essential dependence of smooth surface caries on, and augmentation of fissure caries by, sucrose and Streptococcus mutans infection". Infection and immunity 25 (2): 526–31. PMC 443577. PMID 489122.
23.^ "Glycemic index and by-products of sucrose Sucrose". Diabetesnet.com. Retrieved May 5, 2010.
Baschetti, R (2004). "Evolutionary legacy: form of ingestion, not quantity, is the key factor in producing the effects of sugar on human health". Medical hypotheses 63 (6): 933–8. doi:10.1016/j.mehy.2004.07.018. PMID 15504559.
25.^ Essential information regarding diet and diabetes management. diabetes.niddk.nih.gov. Accessed 2011-11-18.
26.^ National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. cdc.gov. Accessed 2011-11-18.
27.^ Dietary reference intakes: core principles for nutritional labeling and fortification. National Academies Press. 2004. ISBN 0-309-09132-2.
28.^ Spikes in gout cases linked to sugary beverages, BBC News, February 1, 2008.
29.^ "Nutrients for Gout – the good and the bad – Doctor's Corner Newsletter Archive". ABCVitaminsLife.com. 2007-07-30. Accessed 2010-05-05.
30.^ Refer to table 6, page 56 of the Who Technical report Series 916 Diet, Nutrition and The Prevention of Chronic Diseases
31.^ The Great Sugar Debate: Is it Vegan?. Vegfamily.com. Accessed 2011-11-18.
32.^ a b Yacoubou, MS, Jeanne (2007). "Is Your Sugar Vegan? An Update on Sugar Processing Practices" (PDF). Vegetarian Journal (Baltimore, MD: The Vegetarian Resource Group) 26 (4): 16–20. Accessed 2007-04-04.
33.^ a b "Forced Labor". The National Archives, US Government. 2010.
34.^ a b George Rolph (1873). Something about sugar: its history, growth, manufacture and distribution.
35.^ Adas, Michael (January 2001). Agricultural and Pastoral Societies in Ancient and Classical History. Temple University Press. ISBN 1-56639-832-0. p. 311.
36.^ "Sugarcane: Saccharum Offcinarum". USAID, US Government. 2006. p. 7.1.
37.^ Walton Lai (1993). Indentured labor, Caribbean sugar: Chinese and Indian migrants to the British West Indies, 1838-1918. ISBN 978-0-8018-7746-9.
38.^ Steven Vertovik (Robin Cohen, ed.) (1995). The Cambridge survey of world migration. p. 57-68. ISBN 978-0-521-44405-7.
39.^ K Laurence (1994). "A Question of Labour: Indentured Immigration Into Trinidad & British Guiana, 1875-1917". St Martin's Press. ISBN 978-0-312-12172-3.
40.^ "St. Lucia’s Indian Arrival Day". Caribbean Repeating Islands. 2009.
41.^ "Indian indentured laborers". The National Archives, US Government. 2010.
42.^ "Agribusiness Handbook: Sugar beet white sugar". Food and Agriculture Organization, United Nations. 2009.
43.^ a b Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Faostat.fao.org (2011-05-17). Accessed 2011-11-18.
44.^ Miraski, Benjamin (June 5, 2008). "Sugar's money, influence continue to plague domestic candy companies". Medill Reports.
45.^ Bolling, Suarez, Christine, Nydia R.. "The Brazilian Sugar Industry: Recent Developments". Brazil, sugarcane, sugar, ethanol, production, exports, prices.. USDA. Accessed 11/10/11.
46.^ January 2010 Newsletter, IBS Treatment Center
47.^ The Oxford English Dictionary lists both spellings as acceptable, though "castor" was historically more common.
48.^ Dacice and the world’s first sugar cube. dacice.cz
49.^ EC – Export subsidies on sugar. (PDF). wto.org. Accessed 2011-11-18.
50.^ Agriculture – Sugar. Ec.europa.eu (2004-07-14). Accessed 2011-11-18.
51.^ ACP Group of States – The Fiji Communiqué on Sugar. Acpsec.org (2007-05-03). Accessed 2011-11-18.
52.^ International Sugar Trade Coalition. Sugarcoalition.org. Accessed 2011-11-18.
53.^ The New York Times, October 18, 2007, Seeing Sugar’s Future in Fuel
54.^ The New York Times, November 11, 2003, America’s Sugar Daddies
55.^ "Sugar Daddie$". Mother Jones. 1997-05-01. Accessed 2010-05-05.
56.^ Sugar. FLO (Fairtrade Labelling Organizations International)
57.^ European Commission – External Trade – Trade Issues. Ec.europa.eu (2010-05-06). Accessed 2011-11-18.
58.^ Sugar Association. Sugar.org. Accessed 2011-11-18.

Are those enough references for you?

goldencyclist60 said:In quantities so massive they couldn't be achieved through a standard diet, it might spike blood triglycerides, but it won't increase body fat. Too many calories --> increased body fat.

First off, GI isn't the metric that matters here. Insulin response depends on volume. What actually counts is GL—which is basically just GI adjusted for serving size (glycemic load). Second, as I've already stated, even a relatively small amount is enough to trigger the pancreas to dump enough insulin to completely shut down catabolism.

And look, there aren't any references for that claim (and I suspect there's a good reason why)...

Instead, take http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21108071 as one of the more recent reviews...
Notice that this specifically addresses NORMAL intake...

Where are the references for that article?

Let’s touch on fructose, which makes up a massive portion of what we call Sucrose.

Liver function

While certain specific tissues—like sperm cells[59] and select intestinal cells—can process fructose directly, the heavy lifting happens almost entirely in the liver.[60]

If you compare it to slamming down high-glucose drinks, choosing high-fructose beverages alongside your meals actually leads to lower circulating insulin and leptin levels, while spiking ghrelin post-meal.[61] Given that leptin and insulin act as appetite suppressants and ghrelin is the hunger driver, many researchers argue that flooding your system with fructose significantly ramps up the risk of weight gain.[62]

Excessive fructose intake might be a direct contributor to the onset of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease.[63]

[edit] Gout

Research from 2008 highlighted a major link between consuming fructose—or anything loaded with it—and an increased risk of developing gout.[64] Even though people used to dismiss gout as some relic of the Victorian era, cases have been climbing lately. The prime suspect? The fructose packed into sodas and other sweetened beverages.[65][66]

Source with references: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fructose

Is that enough references for you?

I'm not even sure if you get what a "reference" actually means here.
I'm talking about actual peer-reviewed scientific papers (I'll even take one single review 😁) that back up my point: The fructose is either bonded to cellulose and transported out the GI tract or processed by the liver into citrates, aldehydes, and, for the most part, lipid droplets (fat).

Where are the references for that article?

Erm... that article *is* the reference for my claim that there's zero proof that consuming normal amounts of fructose spikes triglyceride levels or body weight no evidence which shows that the consumption of fructose at normal levels of intake causes biologically relevant changes in triglycerides (TG) or body weight in overweight or obese individuals, even in the overweight crowd (who are supposed to be the sensitive group)

some researchers suspect that eating large amounts of fructose increases the likelihood of weight gain
Excessive fructose consumption may contribute to the development of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease

A 2008 study found a substantial risk of incident gout associated with the consumption of fructose or fructose rich foods.[64] Cases of gout have risen in recent years, despite commonly being thought of as a Victorian disease, and it is suspected that the fructose found in soft drinks (e.g., carbonated beverages) and other sweetened drinks is the reason for this.[65][66]

That's just one single study that doesn't prove anything on its own, which is why I gave you a review article (a synthesis of previous studies).
Everything you just listed is nothing more than unproven assumptions pulled from isolated studies and honestly, they don't carry much weight as they are.

goldencyclist60 said:I'm not sure you actually grasp what a reference means.
I'm talking about peer-reviewed scientific papers (I'll even concede one review 😁) that support the claim that The fructose is either bonded to cellulose and transported out the GI tract or processed by the liver into citrates, aldehydes, and, for the most part, lipid droplets (fat).

Erm... that specific paper is my reference for the fact that there is no evidence which shows that the consumption of fructose at normal levels of intake causes biologically relevant changes in triglycerides (TG) or body weight in overweight or obese individuals, even within the overweight demographic (which is a sensitive group).

A single study doesn't prove anything on its own—that’s exactly why I provided a review article (a synthesis of previous studies).
Everything you've brought up is just a collection of unproven assumptions pulled from isolated studies and, frankly, they don't carry much weight as they stand.

Look, stop posting links to articles that lack citations, and quit undermining legitimate references just because you disagree with them.
What you posted is nothing more than a basic review, essentially the same level as a Wikipedia entry, except mine actually includes references to back up the claims, whereas yours does not. Besides, you're acting like this is groundbreaking news, yet the article you linked is from 2010.🤷

slydriver52 said:Look, don't go dropping links to articles without any actual references, and quit downplaying citations just because you don't like what they say.
What you posted is just a basic review—kind of like a Wikipedia entry, except mine actually has references to back up the claims, while yours doesn't. Besides, you’re acting like this is some groundbreaking news, but the article you linked is from 2010.🤷

Alright, if you want to play games, let's go step-by-step:
1. A reference is the actual paper used to back up an argument. So, saying an article without references is a total joke.
2. I'm not "downplaying" references. Science works like this: a review article is way more valuable than a single study because it gathers a massive pile of those studies to draw a conclusion. When you have small-scale studies that contradict the vast majority of scientific literature—like that "study" of yours—they basically get ignored. And yeah, obviously I don't agree with a reference if it's one of those outlier studies.
3. Do you even know what a review article actually is? A Wikipedia entry doesn't really count as one...
4. In the world of science, a two-year-old paper is still considered brand new, btw.