Discussion in 'Social Life, Food & Drink, Travel' started by jeff in vancouver, Feb 10, 2012.
It means that your liver releases a chemical into your bloodstream that your body starts to burn off to fuel your cells. It's a pretty lousy fuel, which is why your muscles don't seem as strong when you have alcohol in your system. They aren't getting the energy. Once that's burned off, your body goes back to processing other backlogged calories like normal.
it doesn't mean the other calories go straight to fat. It means they're delayed a couple hours in going to whatever your body's other nutritional needs are, but they still go to those needs.
Think of it like the natural gas torches that oil rigs used to have. In order for the good stuff to process, you have to be burning off the crap*.
Beer gives you that too, since you're still consuming similar volumes of alcohol. It's just a matter of whether you're consuming the sugars and carbs with it or not. Nutritionally, think of beer as liquid bread, with alcohol.
Incidentally, one reason high fructose corn syrup is bad is because it has to be broken down by the liver, since our digestive system doesn't have a great mechanism for dealing with it. Which is why you have people getting liver disease from drinking too much soda. Yes, the corn industry ads lie. It is bad for you.
*Since natural gas is a hot things these days, I'm not sure if they still do this.
And while the alcohol-liver-acetate-energy gets burned, what's not getting burned? Exactly. Your fat/muscles that normally deliver energy. What does this tell you? Alcohol's calories won't be secreted directly to fat (just a small part) but it passively blocks your normal fat metabolism and thereby makes you fat. Right?
Just curious, not being confrontational at all: what are your qualifications on this? I.e. are you a doctor, nutritionist, etc? I ask not because I don't believe you, but because I hear so much contradictory information that I don't know what to believe about it.
The point should be made that there is nothing metabolically unique about HFCS that differs from regular table sugar, or sucrose.
To some extent, but not enough to make a huge difference. Once the alcohol is at that stage (this is after it's been turned into something else by the liver), it's burned off by the cells throughout your body, spreading the effect out quite a bit, and you're still processing other nutrients- the alcohol just gets priority. It doesn't block everything else for a few minutes, but it's burned off at a faster rate than the other stuff. But the other stuff is still getting processed, and if your body needs the nutrition, it'll still get processed. Unless you keep drinking. I'm talking about moderate drinking here- once you get into binge drinking, things do change in terms of scope. And you get different effects- for example, alcohol stimulates the appetite in smaller amounts (the far greater danger, really), but in larger amounts, the empty calories bit comes into play- your body thinks it's getting real nutrition, and you get less hungry. That's why you have alcoholics eating very little and effectively starving their bodies. They drink enough to feed themselves, trouble is, there's no nutritional value. But they feel like there is. If you're an alcoholic, you can indeed wind up blocking regular metabolic function in the way you're describing, and if you do that on a consistent enough basis, it can kill you.
I don't have any real credentials, I just was pissed enough at the contradictory myths and whatnot that I actually did some research at a higher level than advice pages and bodybuilding forums, which seems to be where a good deal of the general wisdom on this gets published. The stuff that you find there is often contradictory or misleading, generally because the people writing it don't have much idea what's actually going on. I have enough that it makes sense to me, but I don't have enough background to really explain it well.
As a sidenote, doctors have no more formal expertise than you or I in this matter (well, beyond the biology and chem heavy undergrad). Medical schools only have minimal, if any, coursework in nutrition.
Well, if you listen to the corn industry. Trouble is, it's not sucrose. It's fructose, with some sucrose, and bonded in a complex way that our bodies can't digest normally. It's a fairly small difference chemically, but our metabolisms evolved in very specific ways. The chemical similarity is why it tastes virtually identical (there are differences- try a pepsi and a pepsi throwback, or a coke and a Mexican coke to see the difference), but it is different, and processes differently.
Sorry for the thread-highjack, but whatever.
You reasoning is incosistent.
1. "but it's burned off at a faster rate than the other stuff." -> How's that? As far as I'm concerned, energy = energy = joule.
2. "They drink enough to feed themselves" -> According to your reasoning, one doesn't get fat by drinking alcohol. Then you tell us that one can nourish oneself by drinking alcohol, at least in form of energy. You better decide for one position.
Above all, please show us your sources.
Omg. Too much text. Fuck you.
I can relate to OP. was having too much fun but didn't know how to stop. Then last Wednesday night I ended up in handcuffs and in the backseat. I have no urge to go out anymore
Sweat it out, old sport.
Not only does a fierce workout help reduce the calories but it also clears the head after a night of revelry.
Make the time in the morning; and if you know you have a function that evening in which you must entertain (and your morning workout reduces your overnight sleep), make the time in the afternoon to catch a nap.
I also love my late evenings and "good times"... but will not allow myself to be seen as anything but trim and fit.
No. Sucrose is 50/50 glucose/fructose. HFCS is 45/55 glucose/fructose. The metabolic difference between that 5 percent is negligible. However, the point isn't whether they are both processed by the body essentially the same way--they are--but rather, when consumed in certain quantities, they are both equally as harmful to the body.
Not exactly sure where you're going with this sock thing, but I intend to stay tuned.
My coach always said it was good to give 105%. Little did I know he was talking about HFCS.
Ah. Thanks for pointing that out.
Separate names with a comma.