A large-scale study confirms that fructose intake can lead to obesity, just like in hibernating animals, CU Researchers say.

*refined sugars

You joke but we have been sold a pack of lies for years that carbs/sugar is good for us and fat, salt, etc us bad and causes high blood pressure, heart disease, etc. Some of us have known the truth for decades. I still get push back when I bring this up online. Too many people still believe fat kills you and that we need carbs in high doses to live.

Yes. It contains fiber and micro nutrients that gummy worms will not have. Skip the juice though. Drink water instead.

The study doesn't make any discussion about "refined fructose" AFAICT. So I don't see how that would make a difference. They even reference the fact that it happens to hibernating animals, which are obviously eating fruits and natural fructose and not refined fructose.

when your body doesn’t know how to handle the glucose anymore.

Anymore is probably the key word here. And for younger beeple, I would suggest wondering why is that. Is it not possible to keep your carbohydrate metabolic pathways strong and healthy, like you keep.. I don't know, your lungs? Do you have to destroy your pancreas before you learn to eat properly?

Low carb, high protein and fat to satiety is the way to eat ad be healthy long term.

Its one way, and pretty limiting too if you consider a life without supplements. For that reason alone I am pretty certain its not the only way, as long as someone is actually healthy. How many people are actually healthy and why, is a very interesting discussion.

There's nothing wrong with eating fruit. This is one study and the interaction of diet and metabolism in individuals is complex.

What's the alternative? Bread? 😂

There's actually people out there who live as fruitarians. Got to brush the teeth a lot I bet.

First of all, this guy claims he is natural. Does his body composition look natural to you? I really find it difficult to consider advice about health from people who use PEDS to support more muscle mass than their frame (and accompanying gonads with it) can naturally support (I hope you know there is a limit on that).

Second, I watched this part, about the study that shows no difference between low sugar and not-so-low sugar. It takes years of continued abuse of how insulin works (or less time when completely being idle) to start developing problems with your pancreas. A few weeks don't seem like enough, especially if the rest of the food is properly structured. I am curious to see more, if you can find the study mentioned.

Third, and this is why I have a hard time trusting PED mutants discussing food & health, what he is talking about when he speaks about plant protein, especially when it comes to leucine, is just not right.

Take for example chickpeas . I use this link, for two reasons. One is that this is coming from a quite reliable calculation approach for aminoacids (the site is a front-end for this database, where you can learn more about how they calculate amino-acid profiles). The second is because it is easier to calculate the quantities before cooking (which wikipedia doesn't).

So, let's take the RDA for adults, which is 42mg/kg. I am 84 kg (with low enough body fat so that you can see most of my muscle definition, an athlete). This means that I need 3528mg of leucine, or 3,528 grams. One meal (which I really have no issue digesting, I hit the road with my bike half an hour after the meal, quite often) of chickpeas contains (I always measure before cooking and split in meals) 150grams+ of chickpeas. Which is 1.29 X 1.5=1.935, or 1,9 of leucine. Most legumes and beans have similar or higher quantities of leucine*. This is one meal of the 3 I eat in a day. I can tell you with absolute certainty (because I 've spent quite some time calculating what my food contains) that I get more than enough leucine between breakfast and a legume/bean meal (all of it plant based).

Let's look at the other part of his statement. Which is "you might need an isolated form of protein". Look at the RDA again. According to the RDA I need ~ 3,5g, why should I get 3 or 4 times this from an isolated form of protein powder (super processed "food" btw)?

*Since leucine is the amino-acid mentioned, a few examples (in dried form, which is what I find easier to weight before cooking):

• chickpeas 1.29g / 100g -> 1.935g per meal for me or 54% of the RDA
• white beans 1.87g / 100g -> 2.805g per meal for me or 79% of the RDA
• lentils: 1.87 g / 100g -> 2.805g per meal for me or 79% of the RDA
• cranberry beans 1.84g / 100g -> 2.760g per meal for me or 78% of the RDA

So... what gives?

If you want, I can show you why what he said about BCAA's is not true either. It really is not that hard, takes less time than the segments I just watched. Him being an expert on nutrition, shouldn't allow him to spread this kind of information. Unless he cares about turning a profit from this.

I 'll try to refrain from commenting on all the manipulative comments he made when talking about obesity, cause I 'll get really negative. But I will say this, it's really depressing how people who actually care about improving the condition of their bodies, fall into these traps for years.