CEREAL!!!

Quel1970

I just read through this entire thread and I don't know why. I don't eat cereal and I don't know which cereal is better for you and which is not (other than the OBVIOUS ones). What I do know for 100% certainty, is that eating sugary foods alone does NOT lead to diabetes!! And ppl who have diabetes do not appreciate whenever ppl say that.

Check out this info from the diabetes org: http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/diabetes-myths/

VivianRosie

Love the humor!:laugh:

Grandysl

Go up to a random person in the street and tell them that Cornflakes has a GI index of 82 and dark choclate has a GI index of 22 (Ranking it below chick peas, kidney beans and lentils) youll get laughed at.

I sure most random people on the street wont know what GI Index is!

katcod1522

um..hello...I eat a cup of cheerios with skim milk..140 cals. Yum!

LabRat529

*sigh*

I didn't read all the replies- running late as usual and got to get my butt on the road- but I read enough to know people are talking about the evils of carbs, insulin, and the importance of glycemic index. I apologize if I repeat stuff, but a friend of mine sent this link to me and asked me to comment with 'real' science, so here I am. The info I am providing might not be gospel, but it should be pretty solid, as solid as I can make it based on a hell of a lot of human physiology/cell biology/biochemistry and so on can do.

So here's the deal-

Carbs are fuel. They are not evil. They are not scary. Your body loves carbs and you crave them for a reason- energy is good and carbs give you energy.

Yes, you CAN get energy from other food sources, i.e. fats and proteins, but those take some extra steps to put them into a form that your body (and specifically your brain) can use.

Glycemic index is a popular concept but frankly it's a useless concept for the average person. Glycemic index is important if you're diabetic and maybe if you're pre-diabetic.

For the average, non-diabetic person, insulin levels remain relatively low between meals. During and shortly after a meal (even a meal that is mostly protein), insulin is secreted from the pancreas into the blood stream. In the blood, it acts on receptors in cells within our body and causes those cells to take glucose from the blood and move it inside the cell where it can be used for energy.

IF there is an excess of glucose, insulin causes our liver and muscles to take up glucose and convert the glucose into glycogen. Glycogen is a long, branched chain of glucose that is used to store fuel for those in-between times when you haven't eaten.

Once your body has replenished it's glycogen stores, it will make fat out of glucose. And insulin DOES promote fat storage. (As a side note, it's a lot easier to store fat as fat than to store sugar as fat... glucose to fat only happens if you've got a lot sitting around).

HOWEVER, if you are eating in a calorie deficit, guess what happens to that fat? It just gets metabolized back into an energy-yielding molecule in-between meals.

So the insulin-stores-fat thing is really NOT a big deal for the average person.

K... so... what about the diabetic or pre-diabetic person?

Ugh... that gets a little more complicated and in those cases, insulin can be a little bit of a boogie monster.

The diabetic/prediabetic person has lost his/her sensitivity to insulin. The cells just don't respond normally. They won't take glucose up like they're supposed to, so glucose levels stay high in the blood. This drives your pancreas to over-secrete insulin in a hopeless attempt to normalize your blood sugar levels. That means insulin levels stay CHRONICALLY high. It still spikes between meals- but it's not the spikes that really matter. It's the broken system that keeps insulin levels high all the time.

This means it can be a little harder for a diabetic to lose body fat and it's part of why a low carb diet might be good for a diabetic.

Here's the take home message (since I know most of you won't read all of the above): Unless you're pre-diabetic, diabetic, or supposedly 'carb sensitive' (I'm not convinced this really exists from a scientific standpoint, but I'll give people the benefit of the doubt), CARBS ARE JUST FUEL AND ARE NOT SCARY.

So... OP? Eat the cereal if you want. It's not bad. You just have to account for the calories in it. If it's too high calories for your liking, go with something else.

Peace all.

oneder080

I don't know what kind of cereal you guys are eating, but a bowl (1cup) of Kashi Go Lean is 140 cals, 30g of carbs (6g sugar and 10g fiber). What you are describing sounds like granola, and more than a serving of it. Cereal is awesome, and what is wrong with sugar anyway? To each his own, but cereal is the ****. I just ate some at like 3am.

I agree! Im half awake in the morning and love my Cherrios.

tigersword

Cereal is such a hidden killer and most people dont realise it.

Did you really mean this? A KILLER? Cereal? Seriously?

Hypertension is a hidden killer. Cereal? :noway:

No I didnt actually mean this but now im here im going to dive into proving that it can be a killer...

Many people eat cereal with sugar or fruit (Both contain FRUCTOSE (i.e. fruit sugar, table sugar = sucrose made of glucose + fructose). OK so now we know that eating cereal can potentially contain a lot of fructose..


Fructose has been shown to increase risks of developing the "metabolic syndrome" . This is because it causes insulin resistance, increases LDL-cholesterol (the bad one) and is highly corrlerated with increased obesity. Many scientific papers have shown the dangers of fructose (will link if you wish) and some even suggest to actively minimise fruit consumption (taking micronutrients in through other sources such as vitamin tablets).

Obesity and insulin resistance have both been shown to cause increases in blood pressure -

Insulin resistance because Insulin has a vasodilatory effect on blood vessels - This doesnt happen so blood vessels contrict raising blood pressure.

Also Increased Insulin resistance and LDL-cholesterol have both casually been related to increased obesity and all-cause mortality (heart attacks, myocardial infarcation etc).

So there, I absolutely guarantee that someone in the world has died at least partially due to the excessive consumption of cereal containing fructose.

=D

I'll just leave this here, in case you want real science.
http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/

michael300891

Secondly, when you have children (assuming you dont already) - do you really want them to eat whatever a corporation making stacks of money tells you is good for them without actually questioning it?

I have children and they eat cereal on a regular basis. OK, now, do I let them have Captain Crunch or Lucky Charms or Fruit Loops or Cinnamon Toast Crunch? Sometimes... but most of the time they have something like Cheerios or Honey Nut Cheerios or Yogurt Burst Cheerios. They have breakfast at school every morning and they have lots of different cereals to choose from. Do I tell them what they can have at school? No. They don't have cereal every morning there nor do they at home. BUT, I do use my common sense when I am at the store choosing which cereals to keep in my house.

Do I buy it because "a corporation making stacks of money tells [me] it is good for them?" No. I buy it because it is easy to poor some cereal into a bowl, top it with some milk, and give it to them, rather than making them some bacon and eggs. And neither one of them like oatmeal (I know, I have offered it multiple times, it is something they will have to grow into like I did), so Cheerios it is!

And then there are the parents who DO feed their children the cereals I have mentioned above. Does that make them a bad parent for buying that stuff? NO. Don't generalize like that and knock peoples' choices before they've even mentioned them. Somewhere someone is feeling bad because they buy their kids Lucky Charms for breakfast, when the rest of their child's day is rather healthy, because you basically said that they're sheeple.

Also, a good 90% of parenting IS common sense. I love their pediatrician, but sometimes my way works better than his, e.g. I don't treat ear infections with antibiotics. They have never had a ruptured ear drum and their ear infections go away with my method FASTER than they would with antibiotics. He has presented me with studies validating his argument. I respect his argument, but my COMMON SENSE says that if onion juice is a good solution to ear infections and it historically has worked overnight or within 48 hours for me, I am going to use that method to my heart's content. IJS.

So your saying that even if it was bad for you, you wouldnt care? Because its "easy to poor some cereal into a bowl". OK sure enjoy . Perhaps this post should be renamed "Breakfast cereals, the inconvenient truth".

Most people on this forum dont believe me, not because they have actually thought about the science behind what im saying, but simply because it sounds to silly. This is because weve all been raised into believing cereal is a miracle food. Not all cereal is good for you, feel free to eat cereal, just pick the right types.

I would get a stack of scientific articles to help back me up, but those who wont believe what im writing, would never bother reading them. (Yes, im also aware there are also a stack of scientific articles that could be thrown my way as evidence against my point).

Acg67

Herp derp cornflakes have a high GI

Different glycemic indexes of breakfast cereals are not due to glucose entry into blood but to glucose removal by tissue. Am J Clin Nutr. (2003) 78(4):742-8.

www.ajcn.org/content/78/4/742.full.pdf

Objective: We compared the plasma glucose kinetics of low- and high-GI breakfast cereals.

Results: The GI of CF was more than twice that of BC (131.5 ± 33.0 compared with 54.5 ± 7.2; P < 0.05), despite no significant differences in the rate of appearance of glucose into the plasma during the 180-min period. Postprandial hyperinsulinemia occurred earlier with BC than with CF, resulting in a 76% higher plasma insulin concentration at 20 min (20.4 ± 4.5 compared with 11.6 ± 2.1 µU/mL; P < 0.05). This was associated with a 31% higher rate of disappearance of glucose with BC than with CF during the 30–60-min period (28.7 ± 3.1 compared with 21.9 ± 3.1 µmol · kg-1 · min-1; P < 0.05).

Glycaemic index effects on fuel partitioning in humans. Obes Rev. (2006) 7:219-26.

www.captura.uchile.cl/jspui/bitstream/2250/5614/1/Diaz_EO.pdf

The purpose of this review was to examine the role of glycaemic index in fuel partitioning and body composition with emphasis on fat oxidation/storage in humans. This relationship is based on the hypothesis postulating that a higher serum glucose and insulin response induced by high-glycaemic carbohydrates promotes lower fat oxidation and higher fat storage in comparison with low-glycaemic carbohydrates. Thus, high-glycaemic index meals could contribute to the maintenance of excess weight in obese individuals and/or predispose obesity-prone subjects to weight gain. Several studies comparing the effects of meals with contrasting glycaemic carbohydrates for hours, days or weeks have failed to demonstrate any differential effect on fuel partitioning when either substrate oxidation or body composition measurements were performed. Apparently, the glycaemic index-induced serum insulin differences are not sufficient in magnitude and/or duration to modify fuel oxidation.

Acg67

Did you know cornflakes have a higher Glycaemic Index than dark choclate? Yep thats right, if you ate the same number of calories from dark choclate as you would from cornflakes for breakfast it would actually be healthier for you (reduced insulin spikes etc)

Snickers has a lower GI then watermelon therefore Snickers is healthier then watermelon using your logic, correct?

For an alternative try an Egg on toast - Theres your protein and if you use wholemeal bread its better than cornflakes - just dont bother with any butter. If you have the kcal I would recommend two eggs on two toast - breakfast is important - and hey it contributes to your protein intake to

Do not just eat protein for breakfast tho (i.e. just a protein shake) - youve gotta have some carbs

Why is wholemeal bread better then cornflakes? Doesn't the phytate content in wholemeal bread inhibit mineral absorption?

And why can't you butter your toast and why must you have carbs with protein for breakfast? Do you believe in the voodoo of food separation? Also, you indicated above insulin spikes were bad, yet eating carbs with protein spikes your insulin higher then eating either alone, so make up your mind, either insulin spikes are bad or good

Many scientific papers have shown the dangers of fructose (will link if you wish) and some even suggest to actively minimise fruit consumption (taking micronutrients in through other sources such as vitamin tablets).

The dangers of fructose in non physiological doses or the dangers on high fructose intake in mice/rats? Remember context matters

Go up to a random person in the street and tell them that Cornflakes has a GI index of 82 and dark choclate has a GI index of 22 (Ranking it below chick peas, kidney beans and lentils) youll get laughed at.

I'd laugh at you too, since the GI Index is pretty meaningless

Most people on this forum dont believe me, not because they have actually thought about the science behind what im saying, but simply because it sounds to silly

Maybe because it is silly

Fit_Mama84

Cereal is such a hidden killer and most people dont realise it.

Did you really mean this? A KILLER? Cereal? Seriously?

Hypertension is a hidden killer. Cereal? :noway:

hahahaha! Cereal killer...like serial killer... hahahahaha!!!

shaycat

I don't know what kind of cereal you guys are eating, but a bowl (1cup) of Kashi Go Lean is 140 cals, 30g of carbs (6g sugar and 10g fiber). What you are describing sounds like granola, and more than a serving of it. Cereal is awesome, and what is wrong with sugar anyway? To each his own, but cereal is the ****. I just ate some at like 3am.

I love Kashi go lean. Very good.
Also Chex is low is sugar.

meli_medina

So your saying that even if it was bad for you, you wouldnt care? Because its "easy to poor some cereal into a bowl". OK sure enjoy . Perhaps this post should be renamed "Breakfast cereals, the inconvenient truth".

Most people on this forum dont believe me, not because they have actually thought about the science behind what im saying, but simply because it sounds to silly. This is because weve all been raised into believing cereal is a miracle food. Not all cereal is good for you, feel free to eat cereal, just pick the right types.

I would get a stack of scientific articles to help back me up, but those who wont believe what im writing, would never bother reading them. (Yes, im also aware there are also a stack of scientific articles that could be thrown my way as evidence against my point).

Uhm... no. I'm saying that as long as their intake of food is not ONLY that cereal, then they will be fine. I grew up on Fruit Loops, Cinnamon Toast Crunch, Life Cereal, and Kix. I did not have weight problems as I was growing up. It wasn't until I became a young adult and stopped eating altogether (it's what keeps us thin, right?) that I personally started having weight problems. As a child, I ate pretty much any and everything that was put in front of me, had a voracious appetite, and up until about the tenth grade, when I stopped eating, I was stick thin. My kids don't have weight problems. In fact, they are still on whole milk because otherwise they don't seem to get enough calories in the day to be able to grow like kids are supposed to. Should I stop that, too, because whole milk is high in fat?

The GI index of anything matters not unless you have diabetes or have metabolic syndrome aka pre-diabetes. Even then, unless you are eating the most sugary of the cereals, it won't kill you to eat a bowl of cereal.

I won't believe what you're writing because both common sense and science say otherwise. My common sense has told me I can eat 1700 calories in Oreo cookies everyday and still lose weight, but that doesn't mean I should. Some people try to make this thing too complicated when they don't have to. If you're not diabetic or have metabolic syndrome, the GI of any particular food doesn't matter.

Go talk to a diabetic and you'll learn the same lesson. My father is diabetic. I know all about his diet. And guess what? He can still eat some cereal. Just not the super sugary kinds.

Also... it's easy to POUR my cereal that is POOR in nutrients.

melisfit

porridge/oatmeal can be good its all about how you make it!

I use this and I love it! (reese's oatmeal)

1 cup publix original quick cooking oats (any store brand will do)
1 tbsp unsweetened nestle cocoa powder
.5 - 1tsp sweetner (amount and kind Depends on your preference, I use splenda)
1 Tbsp jif peanut butter with omega 3's ( I am going to switch off with PB2 here soon)

add sweetner and cocoa to the water for the oats and bring to a boil. Add oats and stir remove from heat and let stand a few minutes to absorb liquid and finish cooking.

Put it in a bowl and drop the peanut butter on top it will get nice an melty and yummy in a few minutes. mix lightly into your oats and enjoy!

390 calories and it will keep you full for hours!


(Pumpkin pie oatmeal)
Another variation is to add a 1/4 tsp cinnamon along with the sweetner to the water and cook oats then add a TBSP or so of libbys canned pumpkin.

mmm reeses cereal sounds delish! I might try that in the morning:)

atjays

Wow why all the cereal hate? Check out some of the fiberone brands, they are less than 200 calories for a bowl, add milk in there, ends up being about 1/4 of your daily calories for those on the 1200, for me its a spit in the bucket of a 2200 day, I have to add fruit and yogurt ontop of it

srempel_08

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/the-dieters-paradox-research-review.html#more-8649

HIt you macros and micros and enjoy some cereal=)

Crystal_Pistol

Did you know cornflakes have a higher Glycaemic Index than dark choclate? Yep thats right, if you ate the same number of calories from dark choclate as you would from cornflakes for breakfast it would actually be healthier for you (reduced insulin spikes etc)

Snickers has a lower GI then watermelon therefore Snickers is healthier then watermelon using your logic, correct?

For an alternative try an Egg on toast - Theres your protein and if you use wholemeal bread its better than cornflakes - just dont bother with any butter. If you have the kcal I would recommend two eggs on two toast - breakfast is important - and hey it contributes to your protein intake to

Do not just eat protein for breakfast tho (i.e. just a protein shake) - youve gotta have some carbs

Why is wholemeal bread better then cornflakes? Doesn't the phytate content in wholemeal bread inhibit mineral absorption?

And why can't you butter your toast and why must you have carbs with protein for breakfast? Do you believe in the voodoo of food separation? Also, you indicated above insulin spikes were bad, yet eating carbs with protein spikes your insulin higher then eating either alone, so make up your mind, either insulin spikes are bad or good

Many scientific papers have shown the dangers of fructose (will link if you wish) and some even suggest to actively minimise fruit consumption (taking micronutrients in through other sources such as vitamin tablets).

The dangers of fructose in non physiological doses or the dangers on high fructose intake in mice/rats? Remember context matters

Go up to a random person in the street and tell them that Cornflakes has a GI index of 82 and dark choclate has a GI index of 22 (Ranking it below chick peas, kidney beans and lentils) youll get laughed at.

I'd laugh at you too, since the GI Index is pretty meaningless

Most people on this forum dont believe me, not because they have actually thought about the science behind what im saying, but simply because it sounds to silly

Maybe because it is silly

^^All this Mike. What I was trying to say and what this gentleman added the "BOOM SCIENCE" to is: Common sense should alert you if your science sounds ridiculous. Many posters to this thread find the notion of a food being dangerous to be absurd. Come over to the dark side Mike, we have CEREAL!!!:drinker:

michael300891

Did you know cornflakes have a higher Glycaemic Index than dark choclate? Yep thats right, if you ate the same number of calories from dark choclate as you would from cornflakes for breakfast it would actually be healthier for you (reduced insulin spikes etc)

Snickers has a lower GI then watermelon therefore Snickers is healthier then watermelon using your logic, correct?

For an alternative try an Egg on toast - Theres your protein and if you use wholemeal bread its better than cornflakes - just dont bother with any butter. If you have the kcal I would recommend two eggs on two toast - breakfast is important - and hey it contributes to your protein intake to

Do not just eat protein for breakfast tho (i.e. just a protein shake) - youve gotta have some carbs

Why is wholemeal bread better then cornflakes? Doesn't the phytate content in wholemeal bread inhibit mineral absorption?

And why can't you butter your toast and why must you have carbs with protein for breakfast? Do you believe in the voodoo of food separation? Also, you indicated above insulin spikes were bad, yet eating carbs with protein spikes your insulin higher then eating either alone, so make up your mind, either insulin spikes are bad or good

Many scientific papers have shown the dangers of fructose (will link if you wish) and some even suggest to actively minimise fruit consumption (taking micronutrients in through other sources such as vitamin tablets).

The dangers of fructose in non physiological doses or the dangers on high fructose intake in mice/rats? Remember context matters

Go up to a random person in the street and tell them that Cornflakes has a GI index of 82 and dark choclate has a GI index of 22 (Ranking it below chick peas, kidney beans and lentils) youll get laughed at.

I'd laugh at you too, since the GI Index is pretty meaningless

Most people on this forum dont believe me, not because they have actually thought about the science behind what im saying, but simply because it sounds to silly

Maybe because it is silly

First up, no im not saying that snickers is healthier than a watermelon. This is because snickers obviously lack in a lot of micronutrients in comparison to watermelon. The reason I used the example of dark choclate is because its been shown to be help reduce blood pressure, endothelial function and insulin sensitivitiy. I wasnt suggesting you should actually eat dark chocolate for breakfast I was making a point using an example.

HOMA-IR was significantly lower after dark than after white chocolate ingestion (0.94 ± 0.42 compared with 1.72 ± 0.62; P < 0.001), and QUICKI was significantly higher after dark than after white chocolate ingestion (0.398 ± 0.039 compared with 0356 ± 0.023; P = 0.001). Although within normal values, systolic blood pressure was lower after dark than after white chocolate ingestion (107.5 ± 8.6 compared with 113.9 ± 8.4 mm Hg; P < 0.05). - http://www.ajcn.org/content/81/3/611.short

Cocoa powder is rich in polyphenols and, thus, may contribute to the reduction of lipid peroxidation. Our aim was to study the effects of long-term ingestion of chocolate, with differing amounts of polyphenols, on serum lipids and lipid peroxidation ex vivo and in vivo. We conducted a 3 week clinical supplementation trial of 45 nonsmoking, healthy volunteers. Participants consumed 75 g daily of either white chocolate (white chocolate, WC group), dark chocolate (dark chocolate, DC group), or dark chocolate enriched with cocoa polyphenols (high-polyphenol chocolate, HPC group). In the DC and HPC groups, an increase in serum HDL cholesterol was observed (11.4% and 13.7%, respectively), whereas in the WC group there was a small decrease (−2.9%, p < 0.001). The concentration of serum LDL diene conjugates, a marker of lipid peroxidation in vivo, decreased 11.9% in all three study groups. No changes were seen in the total antioxidant capacity of plasma, in the oxidation susceptibility of serum lipids or VLDL + LDL, or in the concentration of plasma F2-isoprostanes or hydroxy fatty acids. Cocoa polyphenols may increase the concentration of HDL cholesterol, whereas chocolate fatty acids may modify the fatty acid composition of LDL and make it more resistant to oxidative damage. - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0891584904004551

Thirdly, I only said dont butter because she was trying to reduce her calorie intake for breakfast and most people are quite able to get all the fat they require in the day. Especially as I was suggesting to eat it with eggs which have quite a few grams of fat in the yolk - the butter isnt necessary but feel free as long as you dont go over your macros for the day.


Fourthly.. You think GI is meaningless? Sorry, but that undermines most of your argument....

After adjustment for potential confounding variables, intakes of total dietary fiber, cereal fiber, fruit fiber, and whole grains were inversely associated, whereas glycemic index and glycemic load were positively associated with HOMA-IR. The prevalence of the metabolic syndrome was significantly lower among those in the highest quintile of cereal fiber (odds ratio [OR] 0.62; 95% CI 0.45–0.86) and whole-grain (0.67; 0.48–0.91) intakes relative to those in the lowest quintile category after adjustment for confounding lifestyle and dietary factors. Conversely, the prevalence of the metabolic syndrome was significantly higher among individuals in the highest relative to the lowest quintile category of glycemic index (1.41; 1.04–1.91). Total carbohydrate, dietary fiber, fruit fiber, vegetable fiber, legume fiber, glycemic load, and refined grain intakes were not associated with prevalence of the metabolic syndrome. - http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/27/2/538.short

The resulting glycemic index classification of foods provided a numeric physiologic classification of relevant carbohydrate foods in the prevention and treatment of diseases such as diabetes. Since then, low-glycemic-index diets have been shown to lower urinary C-peptide excretion in healthy subjects, improve glycemic control in diabetic subjects, and reduce serum lipids in hyperlipidemic subjects. Furthermore, consumption of low-glycemicindex diets has been associated with higher HDL-cholesterol concentrations and, in large cohort studies, with decreased risk of developing diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Case-control studies have also shown positive associations between dietary glycemic index and the risk of colon and breast cancers. Despite inconsistencies in the data, sufficient, positive findings have emerged to suggest that the dietary glycemic index is of potential importance in the treatment and prevention of chronic diseases. - http://www.ajcn.org/content/76/1/266S.short


Yes its obviously far more important for diabetics but we can all develop T2DM... (Will get back to this later)


Fructose...


Firstly, about your point in it being animal studies, yes its supraphysiological and yes its in ANIMALS so I can understand your point but still should be considered:

The studies in rats showing that fructose can cause metabolic syndrome are not relevant because they use supraphysiological doses. A discussion of this issue is provided in Section V. Most studies administering fructose to rats have used diets in the 50 to 60% range; in contrast, the mean fructose content of the American diet is 9%, with the upper range approaching 15 to 20% (36, 146). There are two reasons for the use of high concentrations of fructose in rats. First, it is common for high doses of agents to be used to induce a syndrome rapidly. As mentioned, a 20-yr lag was noted by Campbell (241) between exposure to excessive sugar intake and manifesting diabetes (note that this may be shorter now that we are having 30 to 40% more exposure). If rats are placed on 15% fructose diets, they also develop insulin resistance, but it takes 15 months (144). Second, fructose-induced metabolic syndrome is mediated by fructose-induced hyperuricemia (37) and can be blocked by vitamin C (142). Because rats express uricase (which degrades uric acid) and also synthesize vitamin C, they are naturally resistant to the effects of fructose. Indeed, if uricase is inhibited, rats develop marked hyperuricemia in response to a fructose load (140) and also rapidly develop hyperinsulinemia in response to a diet containing only 20% fructose (141).

What is the direct evidence that fructose causes obesity in people? As discussed in Section VI, epidemiological studies have linked high fructose-containing drinks with weight gain (66, 191, 282, 283), and the general increase in obesity in the United States correlates closely with the rise in overall fructose intake (27, 36, 190). Raben et al. (154) also reported in a randomized double-blind study that the administration of sucrose-containing soft drinks resulted in significantly greater weight gain than with diet soft drinks. Similarly, Tordoff and Alleva (284) also reported a trial in which increased weight gain was observed after 3 wk in subjects drinking soft drinks containing HFCS compared with soft drinks containing aspartame. Fructose supplementation also increased weight in diabetic subjects (285). Finally, there is strong evidence that fructose intake will increase intraabdominal fat accumulation compared with starch-based diets, especially in overweight women (49). In addition, there is evidence that programs that reduce soft drink consumption can result in weight loss (286) and possibly reduce insulin resistance (287).
If fructose is bad, then why do some investigators recommend it for diabetics? Fructose has been reported to be good for diabetics because fructose does not stimulate insulin secretion from the pancreas and, in fact, may acutely reduce blood sugar by increasing hepatic uptake due to stimulation of hepatic glucokinase (70, 71, 72). However, this ignores the long-term consequence of fructose to cause insulin resistance (146). In addition, fructose is a greater stimulant of advanced glycation end-products than glucose (269), and these products are not detected by most routine assays (270). Experimental studies document the fact that fructose can cause cataracts in diabetic animals (271). Finally, the fact that fructose increases triglycerides has led the American Diabetic Association not to recommend fructose as a food supplement for diabetic subjects (272).


And finally - http://www.ajcn.org/content/89/6/1760.short

Results: The OffT2D group had significantly (P < 0.05) higher IHCLs (+94%), total triacylglycerols (+35%), and lower whole-body insulin sensitivity (−27%) than did the control group. The high-fructose diet significantly increased IHCLs (control: +76%; OffT2D: +79%), IMCLs (control: +47%; OffT2D: +24%), VLDL-triacylglycerols (control: +51%; OffT2D: +110%), and fasting hepatic glucose output (control: +4%; OffT2D: +5%). Furthermore, the effects of fructose on VLDL-triacylglycerols were higher in the OffT2D group (group × diet interaction: P < 0.05).

Conclusions: A 7-d high-fructose diet increased ectopic lipid deposition in liver and muscle and fasting VLDL-triacylglycerols and decreased hepatic insulin sensitivity. Fructose-induced alterations in VLDL-triacylglycerols appeared to be of greater magnitude in the OffT2D group, which suggests that these individuals may be more prone to developing dyslipidemia when challenged by high fructose intakes. This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT00523562.


The above shows evidence that eating a high-fructose diet can increase the risk of developing T2DM (Especially if you are already IGT - Impaired glucose tolerance) and increase obesity.

But remember, EVERYONE can develop diabetes. Its not just a genetic disease (obviously prevelance is linked to genes) but physical activity, smoking, OBESITY and DIET all affect its prevelance.

Below is a diagram of the "Metabolic Syndrome"

http://i40.tinypic.com/nbeq69.jpg

This is a quick explanation of the above diagram:

Diet factors such as snacking & fructos can increase insulin resistance and too high total energy intake will lead to obesity.

Obesity can increase insulin resistance through Free fatty acids ceramides, tumor necrotic factor (alpha) which are all released from adipose tissue. Also resistin - a substance that blocks insulin obviously increases insulin resistance

Leptin which is a hormone that keeps you full, adiponectin and IL-6 all increase insulin sensitivity.

Higher insulin resistance can in turn lead to increased fat breakdown (not the good kind - as in breaking down fat after a meal and releasing it into your blood when that process should be stopped by Insulin)

Also insulin resistance increases ghrelin - an appetite hormone that makes you hungry.

Finally, adipocyte LPL is increased (releasing more fat into blood after a meal) and muscle LPL s decreased (which absorbs the fat to be used in the beta-oxidation of fatty acids.

OK so to conclude, insulin resistance, obesity and diet are all linked (exercise is to but positive benefits)

But increased insulin resistance can lead to decreased HDL (Worse HDL/LDL cholesterol), decreased LDL size (smaller LDL are more atherogenic - they increase the risk of heart attacks through atheroscleross), increased TAG - triacylglycerol - i.e. fat in the blood stream. Increased blood pressure, increased plasminogen activated inhibitor - 1 (This blocks the clot breakdown process meaning more clots). Finally you get an increased risk of CVD as a general result of all these elements.


Everything has a role and affect in the human body...







ANYWAY.




My point was never to hate cereal.

Its that some cereal isnt good for you but pretty much all cereal is marketed as a super-food, im pretty sure I saw the other day on a box of coco pops a section advertising the fact that it contains 28% of your RDA for sugar... As if it was a good thing?

I can accept that I have failed to clarify my actual point, and the original mistype of writing "killer cereal" has seriously undermined my argument.

I never meant to suggest eating a bowl of cereal was going to kill you.

But the research is proving that high sugar diets can lead to insulin resistance, and insulin resistance is a really bad thing to deal with.

Furthermore, if we mildly increased the insulin resistance of everyone who has read this post will probably take at least one to Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus levels - many people dont even realise they suffer from diabetes.

To conclude. As I have said many times in this post, feel free to eat a bowl of cereal, just choose the right types of cereal and dont be conned into thinking there all good for you because they say "FORTIFIED WITH VITAMINS AND MINERALS".

michael300891

http://i40.tinypic.com/nbeq69.jpg - Link to picture

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/242214-Cereal-Scandal-A-Britain-Consumer-Expert-Reveals-Truth-About-Sugar-and-Fat

Good article that explains it a lot better than me.

tuppance

I have recently bought Aldi's fruity, cranberry, apple and cinnamin porrige - it was yummy but I am trying to avoid processed foods cos you don't know what sugars or slats they have added and the box was tiny

I made my own with oats, cinnamon, mixed spice and some dried fruit - very nice, much tastier and very filling

I use the aldi's version for calorie counting on here but my version has less calories - next time i make it I will measure accurately and check calorie content