Shimagnolo

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0515150938.htm

bigfred 

If it's on the internet, it must be true.

Carbonfiberboy 

This is not a shocker and probably has nothing to do with HFCS. There were no control groups, for instance groups fed only sucrose water, glucose water, etc. Yeah, so eat a balanced diet. I don't think that's news. The DHA supplementation was news to me, however. Never heard of it before. DHA supplements mostly contain fish oil, so nothing new there, either I guess. Fish is good for you. But did you know that most Omega 3 fish oil comes from one plant in Virginia that is scooping up menhaden by the zillion tons, and thus destroying one of the main fish food sources in the Atlantic Ocean? Stripers and many other species are starving to death.

hamster

I'm not surprised by the positive effects of DHA. There's a good deal of research showing that omega 3 supplementation lowers triglycerides, helps with insulin resistance, it's needed for the brain. I am surprised by the effect of fructose: at only 15% of diet, it significantly increases maze run times.

The big question is how applicable these results are to humans. Yes, you are going to suffer if you don't get any omega-3 at all in your diet. But you don't need much. (Two ounces of salmon or one ounce of walnuts per day should be adequate to supply you with omega-3.) The article isn't clear whether rats in deficient groups were getting any omega-3 or they were merely getting less.

I also doubt that rats are adapted to fructose to the same degree as humans. Most primates are frugivorous (their natural diet consists mainly of fruit). Rats will eat fruit when they can, but I think that, in the wild, they get most of their calories from starches.


Yes, there were (you need to look at the original article). They had four groups, regular diet, n3-deficient, regular+fructose, n3-deficient+fructose.

Carbonfiberboy 

Sorry. I meant to say there were no control groups fed sugar rather than fructose. Thus it's impossible to say from the study that the problem was fructose in particular or if over consumption of any sweetener would have had the same result. For example sucrose contains about the same proportions of glucose and fructose as does HFCS, except that these two sugars are bound in the sucrose molecule. Glucose of course does not contain fructose. So that would have been more interesting, rather than a study that was designed to discover its finding.

HardyWeinberg

hamster

It looks like the focus of the study was omega-3 rather than fructose. After a search in Google Scholar, I could find an earlier study by AP Ross et al (2009) showing the same effect, and a study by van der Borght (2010) that measured neurogenesis in rats getting water vs. sucrose vs. glucose vs. fructose, and found that neurogenesis was substantially depressed in groups getting sucrose or fructose. And even before that, there were studies showing the same results (depressed neurogenesis and poor memory retention) in rats on high fat diets. High fructose and high fat diets raise blood triglycerides and potentially lead to insulin resistance in rats.

So the whole picture is fairly consistent, the big unknown is whether it is applicable to humans.

Carbonfiberboy 

Good job! So neurogenesis not depressed in the glucose group? Interestlingly, honey is just dehydrated high fructose syrup with the addition of a small amount of maltose.

HardyWeinberg

How high? (compared to HFCS 42 or 55% fructose)

Carbonfiberboy 

About 50% of the sugars present are fructose.

hamster

If I'm reading this right, they saw a statistically significant 40% decline in neurogenesis in the hippocampus on sucrose or fructose, and a smaller, statistically insignificant (given their sample size) decline on glucose.
https://neuronalsurvival.se/wp-conten...-regl.pept.pdf

njkayaker

Eeesh.

There's more than enough information that consuming large amounts of simple sugars (any simple sugars) as a part of one's normal diet is a not a good idea.

Keep in mind, too, that the typical American is not very active and consumes a fair amount of simple sugars.

It could be that the rules for people doing hard physical activities is different (while they are engaged in those activities).

Most of the media reports about nutritional stuff are overly simplistic and talking about the diet of sedentary Americans.

njkayaker

You already know not to consume simple sugars like the rats in this study did.

bluefoxicy

https://www.amazon.com/dp/4770030762/

(Went out of stock and shot to $70 for a few months, I got it at $20 just before that)



This is a tasty blue mackerel. It's much more oily than the Spanish Mackerel, which oddly makes it healthier. I did get a spotted spanish mackerel and was unimpressed; I prefer these.



Two meals for $2, not bad. Serve with a side of Kokuho Rose California "sushi" rice cooked with a piece of kombu, then mixed with sushi vinegar (a mix of rice vinegar, sugar, and salt--you can buy it or make it, and you could make it with sake as well). I use a hangiri to make the sushi rice properly, to get the correct amount of water in the rice and season it without making it overly watery. Japanese Kabocha fried in peanut oil is nice to go with this, although I'm partial to leek sauteed in butter (you can tell I hate vegetables--none of this is bitter green garbage like broccoli or peas).

Seriously why are you taking DHA supplements? Americans... where else in the world would people be simple minded enough to drink orange juice and buy vitamin C lozenges?