Study links fructose with diabetes, obesity, heart disease, etc

[brikis98]

Child diabetes blamed on food sweetener

Discuss

Edit --> Here is the actual study: Consuming fructose-sweetened, not glucose-sweetened, beverages increases visceral adiposity and lipids and decreases insulin sensitivity in overweight/obese humans

 

[GoSharks]

I don't know where the "child" (mentioned 0 times in the article) came from. Not from that publication...

These data suggest that dietary fructose specifically increases DNL, promotes dyslipidemia, decreases insulin sensitivity, and increases visceral adiposity in overweight/obese adults.

 

[brikis98]

I don't know where the "child" (mentioned 0 times in the article) came from. Not from that publication...

Yea, reporters have a tendency to present stories in a very specific light (or just screw up facts completely), especially in regards to issues such as diet & exercise. The link to childhood obesity in the article comes from this sentence:

Experts believe that the sweetener — which is found naturally in small quantities in fruit — could be a factor in the emergence of diabetes among children. This week, a new report is expected to claim that about one in 10 children in England will be obese by 2015.

It's not clear which "experts" the author is referring to and definitely seems like this tie in is only included to make the article more noticeable/sensational than just "fructose linked to obesity". Still, it's not the worst article I've seen describing a study and presents the relevant facts - and even multiple viewpoints (see the last two paragraphs) - in a reasonably accurate manner.

 

[SociallyChallenged]

Child diabetes blamed on food sweetener

Discuss

Edit --> Here is the actual study: Consuming fructose-sweetened, not glucose-sweetened, beverages increases visceral adiposity and lipids and decreases insulin sensitivity in overweight/obese humans

Haha, my previous nutrition professor is on there - Chad L. Cox. I had a lot of good talks with him about the subject before they actually got this data to publish. Actually, Kimber was the adviser I was going to be a research intern under until I had to address some family complications. I'm glad this group was able to get some research out there proving this point. So it seems, once again, that refined and processed foods don't do the body any favors. I'm trying to keep my sugar consumption down during the holiday season. I may just try to use it to my benefit by eating it after a long run or something. I'll make my treats GOOD for my body, lol. Nice article though. Thanks brikis.

 

[Kipper]

I'll look at this later this week...god so much end-of-semester work.

Edit: I happen to be in the "incredibly skeptical" camp.

 

[SociallyChallenged]

I'll look at this later this week...god so much end-of-semester work.

Edit: I happen to be in the "incredibly skeptical" camp.

Really? Any particular reason why? Fructose is unregulated (unlike glucose) in the body. It doesn't appear in large amounts in nature without large amounts of fiber to slow the digestion (which allows some external regulation). There have been plenty of other academics that feel the same way about fructose mainly due to its lack of regulation.

 

[StageLeft]

I didn't know fructose was actually digested differently than glucose. I know people hate it, a lot of people, but a lot of people hate a lot of things and it's difficult processing out the noise from the truth.

Are there other articles like this one in the first post indicating that fructose truly is quantifiable (and substantially in this case) worse than glucose?

The comment about 1 in 10 kids being diabetic is utterly meaningless and completely impossible to relate just to fructose. It could be their weight in general or calories in general. It adds nothing to the argument as it's not at all causal or controlled. The fructose vs glucose, though, is pretty meaningful.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

This will answer all your questions about fructose Skoorb:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

 

[StageLeft]

This will answer all your questions about fructose Skoorb:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

Tastes so farking good, though

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Tastes so farking good, though

Yeah, the video helped me get past that though. It's really nasty stuff in the quantities we get in the average modern diet. It's no mystery why fructose does the things it does, the biology and chemistry behind it is demonstrable, I suggest anyone who might be skeptical of this study watch that video as well. Hopefully this info will lead to some meaningful changes in our food production and consumption. With all the harping on healthcare reform, no one is talking about actually reducing the number of sick people, and too many people are unknowingly (or uncaringly) eating themselves sick in large part to fructose.

 

[SociallyChallenged]

Tastes so farking good, though

Yeah, even just the mechanisms show that it SHOULD mess things up. I think this UC Davis research is the first to actually single out fructose and compare it directly to glucose and compare different amounts thereof. I imagine that group will continue on this track and continue to publish articles on fructose - hopefully they can compare HFCS (both the 45% glucose/55% fructose and higher % fructose one) and sugar soon. Perhaps in the context of fructose, there may be a difference in health.

 

[JellyBaby]

I started watching my fructose intake (all sugars, actually) after watching that UCSF video with Dr. Lustig posted here. It's good to see more research done and the word spreading. I even see products now in the supermarket branded with "contains no high fructose corn syrup!".

Seems Lustig was spot-on: too much fructose and not enough fiber are really messing people up (among other things). The modern western diet is so far out of whack it's just sad. Just one 12 oz. can of soda has 150 calories, 40+ grams of sugar in the form of high-fructose corn syrup and just one a day turns into 15 pounds over the span of a year. People just keep cracking those cans open..

 

[SociallyChallenged]

I started watching my fructose intake (all sugars, actually) after watching that UCSF video with Dr. Lustig posted here. It's good to see more research done and the word spreading. I even see products now in the supermarket branded with "contains no high fructose corn syrup!".

Seems Lustig was spot-on: too much fructose and not enough fiber are really messing people up (among other things). The modern western diet is so far out of whack it's just sad. Just one 12 oz. can of soda has 150 calories, 40+ grams of sugar in the form of high-fructose corn syrup and just one a day turns into 15 pounds over the span of a year. People just keep cracking those cans open..

I didn't like him saying the whole one soda = 15 pounds gained a year. That's only if the person is drinking it OVER caloric maintenance. For a fair amount of people, that's not the case. It doesn't necessarily mean weight gain. However, it does induce some pretty gnarly health probs. Either way, soda is bad, but it doesn't necessarily induce weight gain like his example inferred. I totally agree with you though.

 

[StageLeft]

Have either of you cracked open an ice cold coke recently? I am not kidding. That is God's creation right there in a can. This is a hard habit to break, the enjoyment of simple sugars. It may be that people weren't "meant" to eat them, but on an instinctive base level I believe humans naturally yearn for the simple carbs anyway. Sometimes I crave and enjoy them with the same kind of sick wtf one might give a dog who has just eaten an entire quart of lard straight from the container. It's really just how I'm wired. It's really as if life is better when my mouth is num-numning down on those $2.60/pack iced sugar cookies from Walmart (the ones that are little a little cookie piece of cake).

All of this junk is like nuclear weapons. I wish we hadn't invented them (don't get started on MAD, it was an example only!) to begin with but we can't close Pandora's box now. I suppose that if I knew for sure they were super evil I would cut back on them. I do need to take the time to read up more on the links above.

 

[Deeko]

Yea...I don't pay attention to any of this kind of stuff. Every year or two, there's "something new" that's going to kill us. From fat to saturated fat to carbs to sugar to white bread to trans fats to fructose....these nutritionist need something to do, so they find something new to attack.

Everything in moderation, and you'll be fine...

 

[JellyBaby]

Skoorb, I once consumed 2-3 cans of Mtn. Dew or Pepsi daily. I never gave it any thought. I was overweight. Believe me, you don't want a significant health event to be the catalyst for change because at that point major damage has been done.

I also read a book called the Sugar Solution and it, along with other research, convinced me beyond a doubt that sugar management is vitally important to long-term health. The food we eat is getting sweeter and sweeter and along a parallel line cases of diabetes, insulin resistance, metabolic syndrome are rising. There's even a stage of pre-diabetes that many people are in without realizing it where you blood sugar tests are high but not yet to the levels of type 2. All of this is preventable by adjusting diet (except in the rare genetic cases).

Deeko, They're trying to help us. You can shut yourself off to the information (I did for years, sadly) but at least it's there for others to learn from and adjust lifestyles.

 

[Deeko]

No, they're trying to help themselves stay employed. Pretty soon everything on the planet will now or at some point have been linked to obesity, cancer, death, HIV, FIV, you name it....

Like I said, everything in moderation. 2-3 cans of soda every day is not moderation. Did you really need a report like this to tell you soda wasn't good for you? Its pretty common sense.

 

[Titan]

No, they're trying to help themselves stay employed. Pretty soon everything on the planet will now or at some point have been linked to obesity, cancer, death, HIV, FIV, you name it....

Like I said, everything in moderation. 2-3 cans of soda every day is not moderation. Did you really need a report like this to tell you soda wasn't good for you? Its pretty common sense.

2-3 cans of soda is an available serving size at most fast food joints.

I used to be hooked on soda big time, so the effects are noticeable for me.

I've cheated and had a couple a day lately, and the next day I am reminded of how bad it is for me. I'm cranky, irritable, and worst off, when I eat a meal, crave sugar after it. I am re-addicted to it.

I have felt the best in my life, and a big component of that is getting off added sugar completely. It is the devil, I am convinced from personal experience. I'll allow myself a sweet desert maybe once a week, but no more soda, the concentration and dose of sugar is just too much.

While moderation is good, the key isn't to look at what will kill you, or give you cancer. It's how you feel, quality of life. People are addicted to coffee and say they "need" it but once you get them off it for a month they will say how much better they feel. It's the same with sugar, people are hooked.

The only evidence I need that sugar is an addictive drug is the prevalence of artificial sweeteners. If you're a heroin addict they give you fake heroin, methadone, to get you off it. Anything you go through withdrawal from is a drug. I had migraines for 4 days when I first got off sugar last July. But it has passed, and every day is a struggle for me to keep my body feeling good. Because the shit is everywhere and the hooks are set in deep.

Basically, I've come to the conclusion that all marketing is lies. Bill Hicks was right, marketers do nothing good for us and should all just kill themselves. Don't get your health paradigm from the marketed world of TV, or even for-profit news that everyone else watches. It's better to pay someone, as in go to school, for good info on your health. You see ads that say coke is refreshing because it's not. But since they have an addictive product and a catchy logo their marketing works. I've felt it work on me. You don't see ads reminding you that Broccoli is good for you, because it is. Everyone knows that and it's true. The truth is out there but no one is selling it because there is much more money in deception. Marketing has convinced people, or at least given them a big enough denial complex to think doing something bad is good.

People know soda is bad for you, but they drink it anyways, and pay good money for it. Why? Because we are hooked and are slaves to the cravings of our bodies. The marketing and availability from things like vending machines helps too.

In 20 years or less, sugar will be the next cigarettes. It will be demonized and we'll sue the soda companies. It'll happen. Not that I'm for that either.

 

[Deeko]

Right, and should you be eating a McDonald's Big Mac value meal every day? No...that also falls under the category of "not in moderation". In fact, you can say the same thing about the McDonald's itself...no, obviously not healthy, you can point at the calories, the saturated fat, the trans fat, the sugar in the soda, whatever. Obviously not the best thing for you....so just don't eat it all the time. Common sense.

In fact, without really reading the study, I don't think its even an overtly anti sugar study...its a "fuctose is worse than glucose" study. Because, ya know, it wasn't enough for us to learn that sugar is bad for you (duh), we needed to know a specific KIND of sugar!!!

 

[Titan]

Right, and should you be eating a McDonald's Big Mac value meal every day? No...that also falls under the category of "not in moderation". In fact, you can say the same thing about the McDonald's itself...no, obviously not healthy, you can point at the calories, the saturated fat, the trans fat, the sugar in the soda, whatever. Obviously not the best thing for you....so just don't eat it all the time. Common sense.

In fact, without really reading the study, I don't think its even an overtly anti sugar study...its a "fuctose is worse than glucose" study. Because, ya know, it wasn't enough for us to learn that sugar is bad for you (duh), we needed to know a specific KIND of sugar!!!

I'm not really disagreeing with you, as you say, it's common sense. But remember, "common sense, isn't." Marketing has done an amazing job. Marketing works.

I watched the lecture on sugar a while ago. Correct, it is fructose that causes all the problems, basically metabolizes identical to alcohol. What you need to know is that all sugar is half fructose, the best kinds for you, honey, maple syrup are basically just as bad. Because it's all half fructose and your body can't regulate the fructose when it comes in. Another key thing to remember is onset time. Eating 1 tbsp of sugar every hour for 10 hours compared to getting 10 in 3 seconds has a big difference on your body. All sweeteners give you a spike of fructose that is hard to handle.

I eat 2 oranges a day, not orange juice, for this reason. And when I look at the slices of orange, I see all that fiber in there that is going to slow down the rate at which my body handles the fructose.

So I say you don't need to go low carb, have wheat, it's mostly glucose. Just cut out the added sugars for the sake of your health.

 

[Cogman]

Yea...I don't pay attention to any of this kind of stuff. Every year or two, there's "something new" that's going to kill us. From fat to saturated fat to carbs to sugar to white bread to trans fats to fructose....these nutritionist need something to do, so they find something new to attack.

Everything in moderation, and you'll be fine...

Check out the video. This guy isn't just some bimbo nutritionist trying to get us back to consuming large amounts of Vit. C. The stuff talked about was covered and reviewed by several p.Hd's

And whats scary is moderation is something that most people rely on their natural instincts. The thing is, Fructose throws that completely out of whack. You literally eat more when you eat fructose.

He had several studies that positively linked fructose to obesity, and several tests that showed a fairly strong correlation between the two. Given obesity is the #1 health concern in the world, doesn't it stand to reason that we should be concerned about what actually causes it?

 

[Deeko]

I'm sure he is smart, and I'm sure its well researched (I might check it out after work if I'm bored). My point is just that fructose is just the latest. There were a lot of studies researched by a lot of smart people that led us to banning trans fats all over the place too. And you know what? Trans fats only really came to prominence because everyone showed up with their pitchforks and torches over saturated fats.

People will replace one bad-for-you-but-good-tasting substance with another. Until people actually change their behavior, there will just be one more of these after another.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Moderation with soda, fast food, sweets, etc. doesn't really work when food manufacturers are dumping sugar (salt too) into every damn thing we eat. And honestly, why do you think folks got their torches and pitchforks over transfats? Our understanding of nutrition is constantly evolving, and though new realizations may not be 100% accurate or complete (the "fat free" craze comes to mind), they aren't just empty noise either.

 

[Deeko]

...so you're saying the people should scream "Its not my fault I'm fat, those dastardly food companies put too much sugar in my Tastykakes!!!"? Wow, what a wonderful display of personal responsibility that is.

You're missing the point. It has nothing to do with our understanding of food science. We've known for a long time that sugar is bad for you. When the current "evil" in our diet is plastered all over the news, food companies use less of it....and replace it with something else that tastes good, but is bad for you. That's how trans fats got as big as they were - they were a substitute for saturated fats.

Until the average person stops being a fatass that wants to gorge themselves on good-tasting food, obesity will remain a problem, period.

 

[StageLeft]

...so you're saying the people should scream "Its not my fault I'm fat, those dastardly food companies put too much sugar in my Tastykakes!!!"? Wow, what a wonderful display of personal responsibility that is.

You're missing the point. It has nothing to do with our understanding of food science. We've known for a long time that sugar is bad for you. When the current "evil" in our diet is plastered all over the news, food companies use less of it....and replace it with something else that tastes good, but is bad for you. That's how trans fats got as big as they were - they were a substitute for saturated fats.

Until the average person stops being a fatass that wants to gorge themselves on good-tasting food, obesity will remain a problem, period.

Responsibility is a lot of it but all of us are too some degree pawns and influenced by our surroundings. When they are, beyond our control, increasing the exposure to foods via availability and marketing it's not surprising that people are eating more of it. This is why cigarettes cannot advertise as much as they used to be able to because it's a psychological fact, exercised by marketing, that when you tell somebody who awesome something is enough times they will believe it even if they know on some level it's bad for them.