I'm going to try this stuff out. I've been getting calf cramps the last 30 minutes of 90 minute workouts, depending on the types of sets we're doing (it's worse on distance sets).
I saw a guy in my group chugging something after workout and he said he's less sore the next day if he drinks it.
Parents
Former Member
i understand the point as well.
hammer provides links to the information contained in their advertising and i will leave it to the dedicated refrence librarians here to either follow those on their own time or not.
Most of the references have nothing to do with the subject matter and the ones that do, do not back Hammer's position.
I am not saying there is anything wrong with their drink, but their references are just advertising, not research.
1. I don't consider this a valid source. www.sourcewatch.org/index.php
2. "Therefore, fructose may be considered no worse than other sugars, but also no better." www.fasebj.org/.../2652
3. This article is about evolutionary biology. www.sciencemag.org/.../222
4. This article is about fructose and the Maillard reaction and makes a comparison to glucose in the same reaction. Making candies and carmels are examples of the Maillard reaction. www.ajcn.org/.../779S
5. Incorrectly cited. The name of the article is actually "Blood lipid distribution of hyperinsulinemic men consuming three levels of fructose". This paper compares fructose to starch and finds that replacing 7.5% or 15% of your starch with fructose will raise your LDLs. Since the comparison is strictly between starch and fructose, this doesn't tell you anything about different sugar substitutes.
6. First sentence of the conclusion: "Perhaps the most general conclusion that could be drawn from this review of the effects of dietary fructose on lipoprotein metabolism is how little we actually know." This article is a review of previous work, and thus a poor citation. You cite the original source when possible.
7. See 2
8. Most important finding that I can identify is that fructose evokes minimal increases in insulin when compared to glucose and sucrose. www.ajcn.org/.../1305.pdf
9. Explains how and why fructose is metabolised differently than glucose. Does not compare the effects of the two on the body in any way. www.ajcn.org/.../315.pdf
10. Cannot find a copy of the article.
11. See 1
12. See 2
13. Fructose vs. glucose in the purified diet of female rats raised kidney calcium contents. jn.nutrition.org/.../1320.pdf
14. Results were the same for HFCS and sucrose, but straight fructose caused diarrhea and higher mineral loss. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/.../1574483
15. This is a study on people who have functional bowel disease. Not helpful. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/.../3396816
16. "Theme is much uncertainty in the scientific community megamding the association between dietary sucrose and the health of elderly people and how, if at all, consumption of diets high in sucrose influences the average life span." www.ajcn.org/.../284S.pdf
17. Great reference! Joking of course, the website doesn't exist anymore.
18. Quotes are not evidence.
19. See 6
20. See 2
21. See 1
i understand the point as well.
hammer provides links to the information contained in their advertising and i will leave it to the dedicated refrence librarians here to either follow those on their own time or not.
Most of the references have nothing to do with the subject matter and the ones that do, do not back Hammer's position.
I am not saying there is anything wrong with their drink, but their references are just advertising, not research.
1. I don't consider this a valid source. www.sourcewatch.org/index.php
2. "Therefore, fructose may be considered no worse than other sugars, but also no better." www.fasebj.org/.../2652
3. This article is about evolutionary biology. www.sciencemag.org/.../222
4. This article is about fructose and the Maillard reaction and makes a comparison to glucose in the same reaction. Making candies and carmels are examples of the Maillard reaction. www.ajcn.org/.../779S
5. Incorrectly cited. The name of the article is actually "Blood lipid distribution of hyperinsulinemic men consuming three levels of fructose". This paper compares fructose to starch and finds that replacing 7.5% or 15% of your starch with fructose will raise your LDLs. Since the comparison is strictly between starch and fructose, this doesn't tell you anything about different sugar substitutes.
6. First sentence of the conclusion: "Perhaps the most general conclusion that could be drawn from this review of the effects of dietary fructose on lipoprotein metabolism is how little we actually know." This article is a review of previous work, and thus a poor citation. You cite the original source when possible.
7. See 2
8. Most important finding that I can identify is that fructose evokes minimal increases in insulin when compared to glucose and sucrose. www.ajcn.org/.../1305.pdf
9. Explains how and why fructose is metabolised differently than glucose. Does not compare the effects of the two on the body in any way. www.ajcn.org/.../315.pdf
10. Cannot find a copy of the article.
11. See 1
12. See 2
13. Fructose vs. glucose in the purified diet of female rats raised kidney calcium contents. jn.nutrition.org/.../1320.pdf
14. Results were the same for HFCS and sucrose, but straight fructose caused diarrhea and higher mineral loss. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/.../1574483
15. This is a study on people who have functional bowel disease. Not helpful. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/.../3396816
16. "Theme is much uncertainty in the scientific community megamding the association between dietary sucrose and the health of elderly people and how, if at all, consumption of diets high in sucrose influences the average life span." www.ajcn.org/.../284S.pdf
17. Great reference! Joking of course, the website doesn't exist anymore.
18. Quotes are not evidence.
19. See 6
20. See 2
21. See 1
