Why Wai dieters have to eat 20 meals a day

[B-Rad]

how on earth can fructose cause decreased caloric intake?

It doesn't.

Ehrr????¿¿¿!!!!The studies show the opposite.

Nah, you just don't comprehend the studies you post.

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

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

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

Yea, I don't address irrelevant info.

If fructose is so bad

The only thing that's bad is your reading comprehension and logical analysis capabilities.

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.

[Oscar]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

Actually, grapefruit, kumquat, and lemons could be on the menu too (sour, low-sugar fruits).

[B-Rad]

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

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

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.

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

behind the theory ¨Fructose is bad¨.

i'll just pretend I never saw this

[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:

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]

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

What does it say?
Meals high in fructose resulted in 1/3 lower leptin concentrations than meals high in glucose,

and insulin

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

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

[RRM]

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]

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?

[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).

[RRM]

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.