I think you’re arguing different things, or you don’t understand the top comment. They are explaining that gaining weight is a function of net calories. The article you linked is effectively explaining glycemic index, or the rate at which food can be converted into energy by the body. Both of these are compatible. It’s wise to eat low GI food so that you feel sated for longer, but you don’t have to. You can eat exclusively white bread and lose weight if your net calories are negative.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

@JasSmith hmm maybe I linked to the wrong thing. I was trying to find one that pointed out the difference between glucose metabolism and fructose metabolism, as an illustration of how calories are not all treated the same way by the body, but I was in a hurry. This might be better.

[–] JasSmith 1 points 1 year ago

This intra-hepatic lipid will promote the production and secretion of very low-density lipoprotein 1 (VLDL1) leading to an increase in post-prandial triglycerides. A vicious cycle occurs effecting insulin resistance as well. The lipid in the liver will increase insulin resistance resulting in increases in circulating diacylglycerol. Additionally, the insulin resistance will lead to further lipid deposit in the liver with sugar having a greater propensity to turn to fat (3). A downstream effect of increased apoCIII and apoB will lead to muscle lipid accumulation, and end in whole body insulin resistance. All of this metabolic dysregulation results from the direct route fructose initially takes to the liver.

Thanks for the link. If proven this would definitely be a bad outcome, but it doesn’t mean that a calorie deficit becomes a calorie surplus depending on the nutrient. If one is burning more than they’re consuming, the above is irrelevant insofar as weight gain is concerned. It’s relevant either way for diabetes.

[+] [email protected] -12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Don't you people have some vitamin supplements to piss out?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

@DragonTypeWyvern

you people

Which "people" would those be?

I thought literature.cafe was a normal instance but your comment sounds a bit troll-like? Have added a link to my comment to show what I mean.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

People that think that link proves their point, lmao.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

@DragonTypeWyvern ha ha that link was meant as an illustration not a proof. It's not even a scientific paper, it's Harvard Health.

I seriously doubt that fructose is the "root cause of obesity" like this article claims. But @AnaGram is right, all calories are not equal and the science has been clear for a long time when it comes to metabolic differences between how the body processes, say, fructose vs glucose.

I think there are probably a bunch of TOFI addicted to HFCS who don't want it to be true though!

[–] [email protected] -4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

An illustration that you don't understand what calories in equals calories out means lul

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

@DragonTypeWyvern yeah turns out I had the wrong link, it was meant to be one about how the liver processes different molecules.

Anyway there's one in my other comments.

The way the body processes fructose specifically is really interesting and challenges the old beliefs, but you'll learn about it sometime if it interests you.