Advertise on Bikeforums.net



User Tag List

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 30
  1. #1
    Senior Member AnthonyG's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Queanbeyan, Australia.
    Posts
    3,521
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    The Obesity Epidemic. Is Fructose to blame?

    An American researcher Robert Lustig was interviewed for Australia's Radio National (ABC) Health Report which went to air today in which he claimed that Fructose could well be the culprit for the current obesity epidemic and he wasn't just singling out HFCS. He was saying that common table sugar, which is fructose +glucose (sucrose) could actualy be slightly worse because it has slightly MORE fructose in it.

    Anyway here's the transcript and you have the option of downloading an MP3 file, http://www.abc.net.au/rn/healthrepor...htm#transcript

    Regards, Anthony

  2. #2
    Banned. ModoVincere's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,626
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Fundamentally, fructose and sucrose are nothing but empty calories. Both of them provide no vitamins, minerals, or any other useful chemical beyond the calories themselves.
    Fructose gets converted to glucose by the liver. Therefore, I don't think it is much different from consuming glucose...it does take time for the liver to convert it though.
    It is the empty calories that lead to weight gain and therefore obesity.

  3. #3
    mateo for short mateo44's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Irvine, CA
    Posts
    1,973
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by ModoVincere View Post
    Fundamentally, fructose and sucrose are nothing but empty calories. Both of them provide no vitamins, minerals, or any other useful chemical beyond the calories themselves.
    Fructose gets converted to glucose by the liver. Therefore, I don't think it is much different from consuming glucose...it does take time for the liver to convert it though.
    It is the empty calories that lead to weight gain and therefore obesity.
    You can get plenty overweight by eating non-empty calories. I've done it (but then lost it)!
    << no sig at this time >>

  4. #4
    Banned. ModoVincere's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,626
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by mateo44 View Post
    You can get plenty overweight by eating non-empty calories. I've done it (but then lost it)!
    yes, you can, but fundamentally, its the calories that are being consumed in excess of what's being spent.
    The OP was referring to HFCS and sucrose, of which I was referring to in my reply. You can get fat on any source of nutrition if you consume too much.

  5. #5
    Raptor Custom Bicycles ZXiMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Texas
    My Bikes
    Raptor Bicycles... Fully custom carbon bikes... just the way you want them!
    Posts
    1,436
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Let's all stop eating fruit, quickly!!!!

    I've never gained an ounce of weight from eating anything with naturally occuring fructose (ie: fruits and veggies).

    And it appears the more I eat of it, the less I weigh...

  6. #6
    enjoy the ride Krazy Koz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Columbus, Ohio
    My Bikes
    The Ship of Theseus - a bike that I built, which has a constantly shifting constellation of parts
    Posts
    61
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    While I'll agree that HFCS & other caloric sweeteners share the majority of the blame for Americas growing waistline, but in all honesty these occasional trumped up proclamations about this evil food or that miracle nutrient seem rather silly. They ignore the rather obvious problem that we need to eat less food in this country (and pay more for it, but that's a different problem).

    The evils of HFCS & cane sugar is not their effect on our physiology, but the fact that we consume way too much of them. Between 1980 & 2000 our consumption of corn sweeteners grew from 57lbs per person to 85lbs. And while you'd think that our consumption of cane/beet sugars would have decreased during this same time, they actually staid flat. We're simply eating more. Don't believe me? According to the USDA, the total amount of calories in the food supply went from approx 3200 calories per person per day in 1980 to approx 3900 in 2000.

    The problem here should be a secret to no one, and it certainly doesn't require a scientist to explain. We have a food system where all the subsidies are wasted on making the ingredients for processed food cheaper, and we live in culture where day after day we are marinaded by advertising for the processed foods those subsidies support. Like most problems, the obesity problem is systemic and therefore the required solution is systemic as well.

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    251
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I see things getting worse not better and the culprits are obvious, but may do not care.

    overeating in general at all meals but but specically of junk food, processed food, fried foods, juices and sodas etc.
    ignorance about how to eat health and being to lazy to prepare own meals, read contents of foode etc.
    snacking way to much on junk food, crackers and chips
    complete lack of daily exercise - sitting at desk all day followed by sitting infront of a TV consuming calories.
    kids raised eating way too much fast food, sodas, juice, gatorade, candy etc and basically having addictions to this crap.

    I also think people just do not give two hoots that they are overweight and see plenty of peers who are same.

    It is literally revolting to go to a place like a zoo, mall, seaworld etc and see the obesity in families and what they eat that day.

    All you can do is educate your own families and set good examples.

  8. #8
    You need a new bike supcom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    5,434
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by ModoVincere View Post
    It is the empty calories that lead to weight gain and therefore obesity.
    No. It's the excess calories that lead to obesity. The presence of vitamins and minerals does nothing to reduce the effect of excess energy intake.

  9. #9
    Banned. ModoVincere's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,626
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by supcom View Post
    No. It's the excess calories that lead to obesity. The presence of vitamins and minerals does nothing to reduce the effect of excess energy intake.
    you might want to read my second post in this thread.

  10. #10
    Splicer of Molecules Nickel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    A less cold place
    My Bikes
    Giant
    Posts
    1,713
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The problem with fructose is that it bypasses the 'sensor' enzyme, phosphofructokinase, where glucose intake is carefully monitored. Fructose is quickly metabolized, reduces insulin sensitivity and increases lipid production. Fructose was included in foods as a cheaper alternative to sucrose. The problem is that it isn't as sweet so it seems that people consume more of the food than usual in order to get 'fulfilled' response. Whether this is a personal sweetness thing, or the amount of food doesn't fully register metabolically is unclear.

    Obviously if we were actually aware of what we put in our mouths and carefully read labels, we'd have less of an issue. Yes we are taking in more Calories (especially liquid ones) then ever before. A bottle of soda from a vending machine has 2-3 servings but I rarely see someone save it for later.

  11. #11
    `
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    282
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Nickel View Post
    The problem with fructose is that it bypasses the 'sensor' enzyme, phosphofructokinase, where glucose intake is carefully monitored. Fructose is quickly metabolized, reduces insulin sensitivity and increases lipid production. Fructose was included in foods as a cheaper alternative to sucrose. The problem is that it isn't as sweet so it seems that people consume more of the food than usual in order to get 'fulfilled' response. Whether this is a personal sweetness thing, or the amount of food doesn't fully register metabolically is unclear.

    Obviously if we were actually aware of what we put in our mouths and carefully read labels, we'd have less of an issue. Yes we are taking in more Calories (especially liquid ones) then ever before. A bottle of soda from a vending machine has 2-3 servings but I rarely see someone save it for later.

    Could you please tell me where you found that info?

  12. #12
    `
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    282
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Here is something interesting I found about the relation between fructose, insulin, and leptin.

    Consumption of high-fructose corn syrup in beverages may play a
    role in the epidemic of obesity1,2
    George A Bray, Samara Joy Nielsen, and Barry M Popkin


    Insulin and leptin

    Insulin release can modulate food intake by at least 2 mechanisms.
    First, Schwartz et al (18) have argued that insulin concentrations
    in the central nervous system have a direct inhibitory
    effect on food intake. In addition, insulin may modify food intake
    by its effect on leptin secretion, which is mainly regulated by
    insulin-induced changes in glucose metabolism in fat cells (19,
    20). Insulin increases leptin release (21) with a time delay of
    several hours. Thus, a low insulin concentration after ingestion of
    fructose would be associated with lower average leptin concentrations
    than would be seen after ingestion of glucose. Because
    leptin inhibits food intake, the lower leptin concentrations induced
    by fructose would tend to enhance food intake. This is most dramatically
    illustrated in humans whol ack leptin (22, 23). Persons lacking
    leptin (homozygotes) are massively obese (22), and heterozygotes
    with low but detectable serum leptin concentrations have increased
    adiposity (23), which indicates that low leptin concentrations are
    associated with increased hunger and gains in body fat. Administration
    of leptin to persons who lack it produces a dramatic decrease
    in food intake, as expected. Leptin also increases energy expenditure,
    and during reduced calorie intake, leptin attenuates the decreases
    in thyroid hormones and 24-h energy expenditure (24). To
    the extent that fructose increases in the diet, one might expect less
    insulin secretion and thus less leptin release and a reduction in the
    inhibitory effect of leptin on food intake, ie, an increase in food
    intake. This was found in the preliminary studies reported by Teff et
    al (25). Consumption of high-fructose meals reduced 24-h plasma
    insulin and leptin concentrations and increased postprandial fasting
    triacylglycerol concentrations in women but did not suppress circulating
    ghrelin concentrations.

  13. #13
    Senior Member pyeyo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    dead center of Washington State
    My Bikes
    how big is this cell anyway?
    Posts
    88
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    One of the better explanations of the fructose/sucrose/insulin connection can be found in the book Good Calories, Bad Calories by Gary Taubes.

  14. #14
    tired donnamb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Portland, OR
    My Bikes
    Breezer Uptown 8, U frame
    Posts
    5,660
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Nickel View Post
    The problem with fructose is that it bypasses the 'sensor' enzyme, phosphofructokinase, where glucose intake is carefully monitored. Fructose is quickly metabolized, reduces insulin sensitivity and increases lipid production. Fructose was included in foods as a cheaper alternative to sucrose. The problem is that it isn't as sweet so it seems that people consume more of the food than usual in order to get 'fulfilled' response. Whether this is a personal sweetness thing, or the amount of food doesn't fully register metabolically is unclear.

    Obviously if we were actually aware of what we put in our mouths and carefully read labels, we'd have less of an issue. Yes we are taking in more Calories (especially liquid ones) then ever before. A bottle of soda from a vending machine has 2-3 servings but I rarely see someone save it for later.
    Yep. Before I was riding daily and I was trying to devise a plan to lose weight I had gained, I decided to cut out all HFCS from my diet. I made no attempt at cutting other sweeteners from my diet. I really didn't change my diet and exercise habits in any other way. I lost 20 lbs in 6 weeks. It was challenging, as I discovered how many foods contain HFCS. They put it in the darndest things.

    All of that said, I don't think it's the sole "cause" of the obesity epidemic. (I don't think there's any "sole cause".) The US would do well to stop subsidizing its production, though. Without the subsidies, cane sugar is actually the cheaper sweetener. Yeah, it's empty calories, too, but it doesn't bypass phosphofructokinase.
    "Real wars of words are harder to win. They require thought, insight, precision, articulation, knowledge, and experience. They require the humility to admit when you are wrong. They recognize that the dialectic is not about making us look at you, but about us all looking together for the truth."

  15. #15
    tired donnamb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Portland, OR
    My Bikes
    Breezer Uptown 8, U frame
    Posts
    5,660
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Someday_RN View Post
    Here is something interesting I found about the relation between fructose, insulin, and leptin.
    Do you have access to medical and other scientific journals? Try a search on HFCS and mineral depletion - specifically, copper, zinc, and magnesium.
    "Real wars of words are harder to win. They require thought, insight, precision, articulation, knowledge, and experience. They require the humility to admit when you are wrong. They recognize that the dialectic is not about making us look at you, but about us all looking together for the truth."

  16. #16
    tired donnamb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Portland, OR
    My Bikes
    Breezer Uptown 8, U frame
    Posts
    5,660
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Here's a decent layman's article on the subject:

    Sugar coated
    We're drowning in high fructose corn syrup. Do the risks go beyond our waistline?

    Kim Severson, Chronicle Staff Writer
    Wednesday, February 18, 2004

    An overweight America may be fixated on fat and obsessed with carbs, but nutritionists say the real problem is much sweeter -- we're awash in sugar.

    Not just any sugar, but high fructose corn syrup.

    The country eats more sweetener made from corn than from sugarcane or beets, gulping it down in drinks as well as in frozen food and baked goods. Even ketchup is laced with it.

    Almost all nutritionists finger high fructose corn syrup consumption as a major culprit in the nation's obesity crisis. The inexpensive sweetener flooded the American food supply in the early 1980s, just about the time the nation's obesity rate started its unprecedented climb.

    The question is why did it make us so fat. Is it simply the Big Gulp syndrome -- that we're eating too many empty calories in ever-increasing portion sizes? Or does the fructose in all that corn syrup do something more insidious -- literally short-wire our metabolism and force us to gain weight?

    The debate can divide a group of nutritional researchers almost as fast as whether the low-carb craze is fact or fad.

    Loading high fructose corn syrup into increasingly larger portions of soda and processed food has packed more calories into us and more money into food processing companies, say nutritionists and food activists. But some health experts argue that the issue is bigger than mere calories. The theory goes like this: The body processes the fructose in high fructose corn syrup differently than it does old-fashioned cane or beet sugar, which in turn alters the way metabolic-regulating hormones function. It also forces the liver to kick more fat out into the bloodstream.

    The end result is that our bodies are essentially tricked into wanting to eat more and at the same time, we are storing more fat.

    "One of the issues is the ease with which you can consume this stuff," says Carol Porter, director of nutrition and food services at UC San Francisco. "It's not that fructose itself is so bad, but they put it in so much food that you consume so much of it without knowing it."

    A single 12-ounce can of soda has as much as 13 teaspoons of sugar in the form of high fructose corn syrup. And because the amount of soda we drink has more than doubled since 1970 to about 56 gallons per person a year, so has the amount of high fructose corn syrup we take in. In 2001, we consumed almost 63 pounds of it, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

    The USDA suggests most of us limit our intake of added sugar -- that's everything from the high fructose corn syrup hidden in your breakfast cereal to the sugar cube you drop into your after-dinner espresso -- to about 10 to 12 teaspoons a day. But we're not doing so well. In 2000, we ate an average of 31 teaspoons a day, which was more than 15 percent of our caloric intake. And much of that was in sweetened drinks.

    Beyond soda

    So, the answer is to just avoid soda, right? Unfortunately, it's not that simple, because the inexpensive, versatile sweetener has crept into plenty of other places -- foods you might not expect to have any at all. A low-fat, fruit-flavored yogurt, for example, can have 10 teaspoons of fructose-based sweetener in one serving.

    Because high fructose corn syrup mixes easily, extends shelf-life and is as much as 20 percent cheaper than other sources of sugar, large-scale food manufacturers love it. It can help prevent freezer burn, so you'll find it on the labels of many frozen foods. It helps breads brown and keeps them soft, which is why hot dog buns and even English muffins hold unexpected amounts.

    The question remains just how much more dangerous high fructose corn syrup is than other sugars.

    Fructose, as the name implies, is the sugar found naturally in fruit. It can be extracted, turned into granules and used like sugar in the kitchen. It used to be considered a healthier alternative to sucrose -- plain old table sugar. It's sweeter, so less is needed to achieve the same taste. Diabetics use it because fructose doesn't stimulate insulin production, so blood sugar levels remain stable.

    The process of pulling sugar from cornstarch wasn't perfected until the early 1970s, when Japanese researchers developed a reliable way to turn cornstarch into syrup sweet enough to compete with liquid sugar. After some tinkering, they landed on a formula that was 55 percent fructose and 45 percent glucose -- sweet enough and cheap enough to make most soda companies jump from liquid sugar to high fructose corn syrup by the 1980s.

    The results were dramatic. -- a whopping increase of 4,080 percent.

    Journalist Greg Critser lays out a compelling case against high fructose corn syrup in his 2003 book, "Fat Land: How Americans Became the Fattest People in the World." He argues that federal policies that aimed to stabilize food prices and support corn production in the 1970s led to a glut of corn and then to high fructose corn syrup. With a cheaper way to sweeten food, producers pumped up the size and amount of sweet snacks and drinks on the market and increased profits.

    It's not natural

    Critser writes that despite the food industry's arguments that sugar is sugar, whether fructose or sucrose, no group "has yet refuted the growing scientific concern that, when all is said and done, fructose ... is about the furthest thing from natural that one can imagine, let alone eat."

    Although some researchers have long been suspicious that too much fructose can cause problems, the latest case against high fructose corn syrup began in earnest a few years ago. Dr. George Bray, principal investigator of the Diabetes Prevention Program at Louisiana State University Medical Center told the International Congress on Obesity that in 1980, just after high fructose corn syrup was introduced in mass quantities, relatively stable obesity rates began to climb. By 2000, they had doubled.

    Further, the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition in 2002 published research that showed that teenagers' milk consumption between 1965 and 1996 decreased by 36 percent, while soda consumption increased by more than 200 percent. Bray argues that without calcium, which nutritionists agree can help the body regulate weight, kids got fatter. He says that he could find no other single combination of environmental or food changes that were as significant to the rise in obesity.

    Other studies by researchers at UC Davis and the University of Michigan have shown that consuming fructose, which is more readily converted to fat by the liver, increases the levels of fat in the bloodstream in the form of triglycerides.

    And unlike other types of carbohydrate made up of glucose, fructose does not stimulate the pancreas to produce insulin. Peter Havel, a nutrition researcher at UC Davis who studies the metabolic effects of fructose, has also shown that fructose fails to increase the production of leptin, a hormone produced by the body's fat cells.

    Both insulin and leptin act as signals to the brain to turn down the appetite and control body weight. And in another metabolic twist, Havel's research shows that fructose does not appear to suppress the production of ghrelin, a hormone that increases hunger and appetite.

    "Because fructose in isolation doesn't activate the hormones that regulate body weight as do other types of carbohydrate composed of glucose, consuming a diet high in fructose could lead to taking in more calories and, over time, to weight gain," he says.

    However, Havel isn't convinced high fructose corn syrup is by itself the problem. That's in part because it is composed of 55 percent fructose and 45 percent glucose, which is similar to the 50-50 combination of fructose and glucose found in table sugar. Havel's studies have focused on fructose by itself and not as part of a high fructose corn syrup mixture.

    "Whether there is an important difference in the effects of consuming beverages sweetened with a mixture of 55 percent as opposed to 50 percent fructose would be hard to measure," he says. "Additional studies are needed to better understand the nutritional impact of consuming different types of sugars in humans."

    Still, other researchers are finding new problems with high fructose corn syrup. A study in last month's Journal of the National Cancer Institute suggests that women whose diet was high in total carbohydrate and fructose intake had an increased risk of colorectal cancer. And Dr. Mel Heyman, chief of pediatric gastroenterology and nutrition at UCSF, is seeing sick children whose bodies have been overloaded with fructose from naturally occurring fructose in fruit juice combined with soda and processed food.

    "The way the body handles glucose is different than fructose,'' he says. "It can overload the intestines' ability to absorb carbohydrate by giving it too much fructose. That can cause cramps, bloating and loose stools."

    The jury's still out

    Like others in the field, he says there is much to discover in how sugar works, but he disagrees that high fructose corn syrup is somehow reprogramming our bodies toward obesity. Rather, he says, we're just eating too much of it.

    Nutrition theory holds that the basic make-up of fructose-laced corn syrup is not much different than table sugar. They react about the same in the body, says Dr. Walter Willett, a professor of epidemiology and nutrition at Harvard School of Public Health. "There are some modest differences in metabolism, but I don't think fructose per se is the culprit."

    Neither do the food companies that use it in copious amounts.

    Says Stephanie Childs, a spokesperson for the Grocery Manufacturers Association: "At the end of the day, how any sweetener affects your weight depends on how many calories you are taking in overall. Overemphasizing one nutrient at the detriment of others is not going to solve the problem."

    Even some leading nutrition reformers aren't convinced that high fructose corn syrup is of itself the issue. The bigger battle, says Michael Jacobson, executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a consumer advocacy group, is to get added sugars listed on food labels with a percentage of daily value. That means a consumer could look at a package and see that, for example, one soda provides almost all the sugar a person should eat in a day.

    "It simply comes down to this,'' he says. "We're eating too much refined sugars, be it sucrose or high fructose corn syrup or any other refined sugar."

    A sugar glossary
    Here's a rundown of the various types of sugar you'll find on product labels.

    Brown sugar. Sugar crystals contained in a molasses syrup, with natural flavor and color; 91 to 96 percent sucrose

    Corn syrup. Made from cornstarch. Mostly glucose. Can have maltose

    Dextrose. Commonly known as corn sugar and grape sugar. Naturally occurring form of glucose

    Fructose. Sugar found in fruit and honey. Sweetest natural sugar

    Galactose. Sugar found linked to glucose to form lactose, or milk sugar

    Glucose. Also called dextrose. The human body's primary source of energy. Most of the carbohydrates you eat are converted to glucose in the body.

    High fructose corn syrup. Derived from cornstarch, usually a combination of 55 percent fructose and 45 percent sucrose. Treated with an enzyme that converts glucose to fructose, which results in a sweeter product. Used in soft drinks, baked goods, jelly, syrups, fruits and desserts

    Honey. Sweet syrupy fluid made by bees from the nectar collected from flowers and stored in nests or hives as food. Composed of fructose and glucose

    Lactose. Sugar found in milk and milk products that is made of glucose and galactose

    Maltose. Also called malt sugar. Used in the fermentation of alcohol by converting starch to sugar

    Maple syrup. A concentrated sucrose solution made from mature sugar maple tree sap that flows in spring. Mostly replaced by pancake syrup, a mixture of sucrose and artificial maple flavorings

    Molasses. Thick syrup left after making sugar from sugarcane. Brown in color with a high sugar concentration

    Powdered or confectioner's sugar. Granulated sugar that has been pulverized. Available in several degrees of fineness

    Sucrose. Commonly called cane sugar, table sugar or simply sugar

    Sugar (granulated). Refined cane or beet sugar; 100 percent sucrose

    Turbinado sugar. Raw sugar that has been partially refined and washed

    Awash in corn syrup
    It should come as no shock to most consumers that a Pepsi or a Fig Newton has plenty of sugar - most of it from high fructose corn syrup. But what's surprising is the products where the sweetener hides out and how disguised it can be by the deceptively small serving size listed on the nutrition label. Although the numbers below show teaspoons of sugar per serving, people often eat more than one serving. The U.S. Department of Agriculture advises most people to limit themselves to 10 to 12 teaspoons of added sugars a day.

    How much is too much?

    The list below shows how much sugar, mostly in the form of high fructose corn syrup, is in each of these single servings.

    Sunkist soda: 10 1/2 teaspoons of sugar

    Berkeley Farms low-fat yogurt with fruit: 10 teaspoons of sugar

    Mott's applesauce: 5 teaspoons of sugar

    Slim-Fast chocolate cookie dough meal bar: 5 teaspoons of sugar

    1 tablespoon ketchup: 1 teaspoon of sugar

    Hansen's Super Vita orange-carrot Smoothie: 10 teaspoons of sugar

    E-mail Kim Severson at kseverson@sfchronicle.com.

    http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...DGS24VKMH1.DTL

    This article appeared on page E - 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle
    "Real wars of words are harder to win. They require thought, insight, precision, articulation, knowledge, and experience. They require the humility to admit when you are wrong. They recognize that the dialectic is not about making us look at you, but about us all looking together for the truth."

  17. #17
    Splicer of Molecules Nickel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    A less cold place
    My Bikes
    Giant
    Posts
    1,713
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

  18. #18
    Senior Member AnthonyG's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Queanbeyan, Australia.
    Posts
    3,521
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The researcher Robert Lustig explains that its about insulin and leptin. What he has to say is very similar to what Nickel posted and he has many more interesting things to say. Basicaly he's saying that we self regulate calories realy quite well without fructose in our diets but add processed fructose, he's not saying that consumption of fresh fruit is a problem, and the self regulating mechanism fails and we gain weight in an unregulated manner.

    He's also claiming that large food companies KNOW that by adding fructose to everything that we will eat more of their foods and there by make more profit although he stops short of claiming that they know that they are directly causing harm. They also talk about glycemic index vs glycemic load. Carrots have a higher glycemic index than HFCS but glycemic index is calculated by assuming that every food provides a 50 gram dose of sugars. The catch is that to consume 50 grams of sugars you would have to eat a LOT of carrots but with HFCS its all too easy.

    Regards, Anthony

  19. #19
    Senior Member DannoXYZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Saratoga, CA
    Posts
    11,495
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The other thing is that the fructose in fruits & veggies are locked into a hard-to-digest cellulose matrix. That fructose is freed only after much digestion and time. It doesn't hit your system as quickly as a soda would. Here's some more articles on fructose:

    A site that shows the differences in glucose versus fructose metabolism (about 1/2 way down):
    MedBioInfo - Carbohydrate metabolism

    University of Florida - Scientists find sugar may have a sour side
    SFgate - Sugar coated. We're drowning in high fructose corn syrup.
    PeerTrainer - Fructose and Fat
    Obesity Research - Carbohydrates and Increases in Obesity: Does the Type of Carbohydrate Make a Difference?
    AmJournal Clinical Nutrition - Fructose misuse, the obesity epidemic
    AmJournal Clinical Nutrition - Fructose, weight gain, and the insulin resistance syndrome
    AmJournal Clinical Nutrition - Increased consumption of refined carbohydrates...
    AmJournal Clinical Nutrition - Consumption of high-fructose corn syrup in beverages may play a role in the epidemic of obesity
    Montgomery College - Corn Syrup: Bittersweet Story.pdf
    Bodybuilding.com - Types Of Sweeteners
    Secretariat of the Pacific Community #66.doc
    Nutrition&Metabolism - Fructose, insulin resistance, and metabolic dyslipidemia

    Here's a paper that shows only 40-50gm of extra fructose can have severe repercussions: RefinedFructoseNegativeImpactonHealth.pdf

  20. #20
    Senior Member AnthonyG's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Queanbeyan, Australia.
    Posts
    3,521
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Pete Fagerlin View Post
    Dueling "experts."

    American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, November 2007.

    "These studies," Akhavan and Anderson conclude, "do not support the hypothesis that the replacement of sucrose with high-fructose corn syrup as a caloric sweetener has contributed to overeating and obesity because of differences in their short-term physiologic (effects)."


    http://www.reuters.com/article/healt...97449520071129
    Actualy Robert Lustig isn't disputing that point. As I stated in my origional post sucrose (fructose + glucose) usualy has more fructose in it than HFCS. What probably has changed is that HFCS is put in foods that used to not have added sugars in them at all.

    Now while I will defer to the experts on this I will add that there IS something about HFCS that my body just doesn't like in comparison to sucrose although I try not to consume sucrose either. The takeaway that I eat lunch at recently changed their tomato sause from one sweetened with sucrose to one sweetened with HFCS and it realy had a negative effect on me. Maybe it was the HFCS or maybe it was just sweeter with the HFCS in it. Hard to say but I stoped using tomato sauce.

    Regards, Anthony

  21. #21
    `
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    282
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Pete Fagerlin View Post
    Dueling "experts."

    American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, November 2007.

    "These studies," Akhavan and Anderson conclude, "do not support the hypothesis that the replacement of sucrose with high-fructose corn syrup as a caloric sweetener has contributed to overeating and obesity because of differences in their short-term physiologic (effects)."


    http://www.reuters.com/article/healt...97449520071129
    The interesting thing about the interview Anthony posted was that he mentions a long term cumulative effect of fructose. From what else has been said is that since a large part of sucrose is fructose it seems that it would be logical that there would not be much of a difference in results because in consuming sucrose one would still be consuming fructose.

    The replacement of sucrose with HFCS in soft
    drinks can impact the ratio of fructose to glucose in the
    diets of individuals, as HFCS-55 has a fructose-to-glucose
    ratio of 1.22 and contains 10% more fructose by
    weight than sucrose. Approximately 60% of the HFCS
    used in the food supply is HFCS-55 and 40% is HFCS-
    42.11 It appears from the combined use of sucrose,
    HFCS-42, and HFCS-55 that fructose constitutes very
    close to 50% of energy in added sweeteners.1 Therefore,
    50% of the intake of added sweeteners discussed above
    is likely to provide a reasonably close approximation of
    total fructose intake. Accordingly, a conservative estimate
    based on CSFII survey data is that the average
    energy intake of fructose from added sugars is 7% to 8%.
    Energy from added sugars plus the naturally occurring
    sugars in fruit and fruit juices is over 12%. This estimate
    is based on consumption of sweets/desserts, soft drinks,
    fruit, and fruit juices.14 Food disappearance data indicate
    that about 10% of the energy in the food supply is from
    fructose contained in added sugars. This is quite close to
    the 11.5% of energy value in the CFSII data from
    1994–1998.
    Table 1. Sweetener Composition

    Component (%)...........HFCS-42......Sucrose...HFCS-55........Invert Sugar....Honey
    Fructose.......................42..............50...........55..................45................49
    Glucose........................53..............50............42.................45................43
    Others...........................5...............0..............3.................10................ ..8
    Moisture.......................29...............5.............23................25.................1 8


    from:
    Hanover L,White J. Manufacturing, composition, and
    applications of fructose. Am J Clin Nutr. 1993;58:724SY732S.

  22. #22
    Newbie
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Just my 2-bits from reading Taubes' Good Calories, Bad Calories:

    One of his recurring themes is to avoid elevated insulin levels based on the hypothesis that insulin causes us to add to fat stores (and lots of other physiological changes). Fructose causes higher levels and longer elevated levels of insulin than glucose - in part because it hase to be processed through the liver. The glycemic index rates glucose level in the bloodstream, not insulin level directly.

    Charlie

  23. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    1,941
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by AnthonyG View Post
    Actualy Robert Lustig isn't disputing that point. As I stated in my origional post sucrose (fructose + glucose) usualy has more fructose in it than HFCS. What probably has changed is that HFCS is put in foods that used to not have added sugars in them at all.

    Now while I will defer to the experts on this I will add that there IS something about HFCS that my body just doesn't like in comparison to sucrose although I try not to consume sucrose either. The takeaway that I eat lunch at recently changed their tomato sause from one sweetened with sucrose to one sweetened with HFCS and it realy had a negative effect on me. Maybe it was the HFCS or maybe it was just sweeter with the HFCS in it. Hard to say but I stoped using tomato sauce.

    Regards, Anthony
    +5

    It's not the HFCS per se, it's the simple carbs that are the problem. Sucrose, fructose, and simple starches all send the blood sugar up, and that's what's the problem is. If they are contained in raw foods and/or present in meals with protein and fat, the blood sugar effect is moderated (and therefore not as bad).

    Note that people have different abilities to metabolize fructose. I've been unable to drink apple juice or eat raw apples since I was a kid (ironic as my grandfather grew apples for a living), though I can tolerate apple pie. And if I have a HFCS-sweetened pop after exercise, I will get really nauseous. But I don't have trouble with most other fruits or vegetables.
    Eric

    2005 Trek 5.2 Madone, Red with Yellow Flames (Beauty)
    199x Lemond Tourmalet, Yellow with fenders (Beast)

    Read my cycling blog at http://riderx.info/blogs/riderx
    Like climbing? Goto http://www.bicycleclimbs.com

  24. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    1,564
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    cliff notes: the general public is starting to think being fat is OK

    more fat people on TV as role models

    less exercise in schools....'my little snowflake could get hurt and I'll sue'

    snack foods in schools

    all that crap is responsible as well.

  25. #25
    Not safe for work cyclokitty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    My Bikes
    KHS Town and Country 100 & Jamis Durango Femme 1.0
    Posts
    2,079
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Once subsidized, sugar is very cheap. It's ridiculous how it shows up in pretty much every food. I read food labels as if I actually enjoy reading them because sugar has so many different names (just like Donna above wrote).

    We've also have a taste for it. Think about how easy it is to eat something sweet. There is no challenge to the tastebuds to eat a sweetened food or naturally sweet food. Almost automatically the sweet food is accepted. Unlike eating a brussell sprout or asparagus or even lettuce. Foods that aren't sweet are sometimes bitter or astringent or some combination of sweet-bitter-astringent and I imagine for people who weren't brought up eating lots of different flavours are easily repelled by the non-sweet taste. Kind of like little kids. Plenty of kids will suck back a bottle of ketchup before trying a tomato.

    Now go back and see how govenment subsidies (our tax dollars) are used to make sure sweetened food are cheap and easy to buy. Practically every convenience food is stuffed with cheap sugar: mac and cheese, frozen pizza, breakfast cereal, breakfast bars, crackers, peanut butter, yogurt, fruit beverages, tomato sauce, snack foods. Pick a meal and reach for the package and look for sugar.

    Then add people terrified that their child will be hurt playing outside, schools slashing phys ed budgets (mine did! Once a week we'd have gym, but only if we behaved all week. One teacher in particular in gr. 8 made sure we sounded like the hounds from hell. I think we had gym 4 times all year.), and community centres tend to get picked off when there is a crunch at budget times.

    It doesn't help that it is easy to get into a nutritional rut when you have to figure out how to feed yourself and your family in a tight budget and with time constraints. It also doesn't help if you blindly follow your family's traditions when it comes to food. And physical activity come to think of it. My mother thinks my bike riding is "quaint" and "peculiar". Don't even ask what she thinks about my diet choices!


Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •