Better sex and better health.

[jay0707]

Firstly honey is almost as bad as sugar. It is high in both fructose and glucose. A small amount is ok but 4tablespoons in one drink is a very unhealthy amount of what is basically sugar.

However the funniest part of this post is this quote

Breathe for better sex. if you do deep breathes at begging and end of the day. you will have smaller wasit. smaller belly. stronger back

As if taking a deep breath now and then will give you a smaller waist and smaller belly. If that was true there would be no fat people as they would just have to take a couple of deep breaths morning and night to lose weight. Would save the NHS millions in treatment

Also men don't sign off with a couples of xxx that's a female thing

There's nothing wrong with fructose  at all when consumed in moderation. The amount you consume is down to many variables. Honey is usually composed of around 80% sugar and roughly half is fructose. You could consume 100g of honey and there isn't going to be a great deal of fructose in it. Even then the content varies with different types of honey. 3-4 tablespoons is a little excessive but issues are only going to arise when it is done day in, day out or if you have a history of diabetes in your family, due to the spiking of insulin, as honey generally has a high GI. The bitter truth is, fructose really isn't the boogeyman. There's a lot worse things in other foods. Honey is somewhat a super food, just moderate it.

[Ravanelli]

There's nothing wrong with fructose  at all when consumed in moderation. The amount you consume is down to many variables. Honey is usually composed of around 80% sugar and roughly half is fructose. You could consume 100g of honey and there isn't going to be a great deal of fructose in it. Even then the content varies with different types of honey. 3-4 tablespoons is a little excessive but issues are only going to arise when it is done day in, day out or if you have a history of diabetes in your family, due to the spiking of insulin, as honey generally has a high GI. The bitter truth is, fructose really isn't the boogeyman. There's a lot worse things in other foods. Honey is somewhat a super food, just moderate it.

You're wrong my friend. There is everything wrong with fructose; as I have pointed out previously, fructose is metabolised completely differently to other sugars, in essence it is sent straight to the liver and converted to fat and is chiefly responsible for causing insulin resistance in the liver. The metabolic pathway should should tell you that we simply don't need it. You talk about a moderate intake but what is a moderate intake? The problem is that fruits are genetically engineered to contain incredibly high fructose levels and processed foods also contain incredibly high levels. When the powers that be got it wrong and declared salt and fat as the enemy food manufacturers had to do something to make the food taste good so they replaced the salt with sugar. The spiking of blood sugar and the respective GI of foods is only half the story when it comes to causal factors for diabetes. The increased incidence of diabetes tracks nicely with our intake of high fructose corn syrup. It is all too easy to make statements that everything in moderation is fine, but as I said how do you define what is 'moderate' when we live in a world of cheap processed food with high sugar content? You can't definitively quantify what is 'moderate' whereas I can state unequivocally that you don't need fructose. All sugars are not the same, the may be equi-calorific but they are not equi-metabolic. The claim that honey is some sort of super health food is complete bollocks, I walked past a shelf in the supermarket yesterday and saw a jar of honey for £16, not just any honey but Manuka honey. I chuckled to myself at the thought of someone being gullible enough to buy it. Essentially it is sugar and whilst it contains some vitamins like niacin and B6, the make up is generally only around 2% vitamins, the idea that it is some sort of superfood is bollocks.

[Aspen]

There's nothing wrong with fructose  at all when consumed in moderation. The amount you consume is down to many variables. Honey is usually composed of around 80% sugar and roughly half is fructose. You could consume 100g of honey and there isn't going to be a great deal of fructose in it. Even then the content varies with different types of honey. 3-4 tablespoons is a little excessive but issues are only going to arise when it is done day in, day out or if you have a history of diabetes in your family, due to the spiking of insulin, as honey generally has a high GI. The bitter truth is, fructose really isn't the boogeyman. There's a lot worse things in other foods. Honey is somewhat a super food, just moderate it.

You're wrong my friend. There is everything wrong with fructose; as I have pointed out previously, fructose is metabolised completely differently to other sugars, in essence it is sent straight to the liver and converted to fat and is chiefly responsible for causing insulin resistance in the liver.

Oh yeah. So where did you get that from?

High sugar intake inhibits the conversion of fat into useable fuel carbohydrates. Little or none of it is converted into fat. Get your facts right before you accuse someone else of being wrong.

Most of the fat in our bodies comes from fat content in diet. The liver produces fatty substances such as chloresterol and there is a purpose behind that. But it doesn't convert fructose into fat. Another thing is that insulin resistance causes raised blood sugar levels, it's not necessarily a consequence of it.

[nodrah]

Ravenelli reckons there is everything wrong with fructose ...... if he would post her AW link then we can all avoid her ........

[Ravanelli]

You're wrong my friend. There is everything wrong with fructose; as I have pointed out previously, fructose is metabolised completely differently to other sugars, in essence it is sent straight to the liver and converted to fat and is chiefly responsible for causing insulin resistance in the liver.

Oh yeah. So where did you get that from?

High sugar intake inhibits the conversion of fat into useable fuel carbohydrates. Little or none of it is converted into fat. Get your facts right before you accuse someone else of being wrong.

Most of the fat in our bodies comes from fat content in diet. The liver produces fatty substances such as chloresterol and there is a purpose behind that. But it doesn't convert fructose into fat. Another thing is that insulin resistance causes raised blood sugar levels, it's not necessarily a consequence of it.

High sugar intake inhibits the conversion of fat... No shit Sherlock. Of course it does, I didn't say it didn't but you are being less specific on the type of sugar because as I said! fructose is metabolised in the liver and does not affect blood sugar levels in the same way as say Glucose does. It stands to reason that it you are consuming sugar then the body had little need to convert stored fat to glucose. Insulin resistance doesn't cause raised blood sugar levels, it simply means that the body is less able to deal with high blood sugar levels that occur as a result of dietary intake.
Most of our body fat comes from eating fat in our diet does it? So where did you get that from, a men's health magazine? You are no doubt one of the eat less fat brigade, when fat in our diet is not the problem.
Here are two direct references from an academic paper posted on the American society for clinical nutrition website... But note in particular the last comment that hepatic metabolism of fructose favours lipogenesis.

Fructose is an intermediary in the metabolism of glucose, but there is no biological need for dietary fructose. When ingested by itself, fructose is poorly absorbed from the gastrointestinal tract, and it is almost entirely cleared by the liver—the circulating concentration is ≈0.01 mmol/L in peripheral blood, compared with 5.5 mmol/L for glucose.

Fructose is metabolized, primarily in the liver, by phosphorylation on the 1-position, a process that bypasses the rate-limiting phosphofructokinase step (4). Hepatic metabolism of fructose thus favors lipogenesis, and it is not surprising that several studies have found changes in circulating lipids when subjects eat high-fructose diets

Perhaps also watch one of Dr Robert Lustigs Youtube lectures on why fructose is bad.

External Link/Members Only

[jay0707]

You're wrong my friend. There is everything wrong with fructose; as I have pointed out previously, fructose is metabolised completely differently to other sugars, in essence it is sent straight to the liver and converted to fat and is chiefly responsible for causing insulin resistance in the liver. The metabolic pathway should should tell you that we simply don't need it. You talk about a moderate intake but what is a moderate intake? The problem is that fruits are genetically engineered to contain incredibly high fructose levels and processed foods also contain incredibly high levels. When the powers that be got it wrong and declared salt and fat as the enemy food manufacturers had to do something to make the food taste good so they replaced the salt with sugar. The spiking of blood sugar and the respective GI of foods is only half the story when it comes to causal factors for diabetes. The increased incidence of diabetes tracks nicely with our intake of high fructose corn syrup. It is all too easy to make statements that everything in moderation is fine, but as I said how do you define what is 'moderate' when we live in a world of cheap processed food with high sugar content? You can't definitively quantify what is 'moderate' whereas I can state unequivocally that you don't need fructose. All sugars are not the same, the may be equi-calorific but they are not equi-metabolic. The claim that honey is some sort of super health food is complete bollocks, I walked past a shelf in the supermarket yesterday and saw a jar of honey for £16, not just any honey but Manuka honey. I chuckled to myself at the thought of someone being gullible enough to buy it. Essentially it is sugar and whilst it contains some vitamins like niacin and B6, the make up is generally only around 2% vitamins, the idea that it is some sort of superfood is bollocks.

I've been eating 1-2 teaspoons of manuka honey for over 2 years, get my blood levels checked regularly due to my use of testosterone en . My blood profiles always come back healthy with no cause for concern or change.

The truth is though, the overwhelming majority of studies do not PROVE a thing, they only make reasonable suggestions. Science itself really is inductive.

[Ravanelli]

I've been eating 1-2 teaspoons of manuka honey for over 2 years, get my blood levels checked regularly due to my use of testosterone en . My blood profiles always come back healthy with no cause for concern or change.

The truth is though, the overwhelming majority of studies do not PROVE a thing, they only make reasonable suggestions. Science itself really is inductive.

Ah, so you're one of the mugs paying £16 a jar for Manuka honey. Why? Is it because you think it's some sort of superfood are are you actually suggesting that your blood profiles are healthy due to you daily Manuka honey intake? If so, which bit of scientific evidence was used to draw your 'inductive' reasoning? I find your whole statement quite bizarre; are you actually suggesting that science can't prove anything? Don't talk in general terms, if you want to cite which studies have failed to prove anything then please do. It is a fact that fructose is not required in our diets and that it is metabolised completely differently to other sugars. However, inductive reasoning can be used to conclude that your Manuka honey intake is probably doing more harm than good.

[LL]

Ah, so you're one of the mugs paying £16 a jar for Manuka honey. Why? Is it because you think it's some sort of superfood are are you actually suggesting that your blood profiles are healthy due to you daily Manuka honey intake? If so, which bit of scientific evidence was used to draw your 'inductive' reasoning? I find your whole statement quite bizarre; are you actually suggesting that science can't prove anything? Don't talk in general terms, if you want to cite which studies have failed to prove anything then please do. It is a fact that fructose is not required in our diets and that it is metabolised completely differently to other sugars. However, inductive reasoning can be used to conclude that your Manuka honey intake is probably doing more harm than good.

But to his credit the guy had an orgasm that lasted for 3 weeks!  Holy shit imagine the ball-ache after 3 weeks.

[SirFrank]

It's a shame this twat was banned. He was hilarious. Must be a candidate for wanker of the week

[LL]

It's a shame this twat was banned. He was hilarious. Must be a candidate for wanker of the week

I have a feeling he'll be back.

[jay0707]

Ah, so you're one of the mugs paying £16 a jar for Manuka honey. Why? Is it because you think it's some sort of superfood are are you actually suggesting that your blood profiles are healthy due to you daily Manuka honey intake? If so, which bit of scientific evidence was used to draw your 'inductive' reasoning? I find your whole statement quite bizarre; are you actually suggesting that science can't prove anything? Don't talk in general terms, if you want to cite which studies have failed to prove anything then please do. It is a fact that fructose is not required in our diets and that it is metabolised completely differently to other sugars. However, inductive reasoning can be used to conclude that your Manuka honey intake is probably doing more harm than good.

It seems you misinterpreted what I said. I said I consumed Manuka honey daily, yet my blood profile is considered healthy when I get them checked. I'm not saying Manuka honey has made them healthy, I am simply stating that  regardless of my HONEY consumption whether it is Manuka or not is not causing any damage to my health. Science cannot definitely prove anything, it gives suggestions based on assumptions, it's just recognized as proof within some circumstances.

Just because Honey is metabolized in the liver doesn't mean it is harmful or toxic. Anything has the ability to become toxic whether we are talking about the liver being the only organ that can metabolize fructose in significant amounts or that too much zinc intake can cause serious side effects. I am assuming that the talk of fructose here is that it get's converted into fat when metabolized? So what is exactly bad about fat? Nothing. whether it is converted into fat or not, it doesn't matter if we are talking about body composition and general body weight as the only thing that can dictate the aforementioned is caloric intake and some health issues. I agree fructose isn't required in are diets, but it doesn't mean it comes with serious health effects when moderated.

[geek_lover]

This thread is brilliant.  I have been laughing so much mainly at the responses but also "hump, hump, take that bitch!" (not sure I will read a better line than that!  I laughed so much I have literally chocked on my cup of tea, not good when sitting at work, in a communal office I may add....

As others pointed out most of this is laughable bollocks.  The argument about superfood honey rages on and on, without saying too much I myself make a fair few quid dabbling in honey, myself I consume around 1 jar a year (normally when I am ill).  In moderation its good stuff, but to all those honey lovers I am happy enough to take their money.