Clean vs. Junk - does it really matter?

SanteMulberry

This article is from the Journal of the American Society of Nephrology. It is entitled, "Uric Acid, the Metabolic Syndrome and Renal Disease" http://jasn.asnjournals.org/content/17/12_suppl_3/S165.full

From the article: "...Recently, uric acid also was found to have a causal role in the metabolic syndrome that was induced experimentally by fructose (38). Fructose rapidly raises uric acid as a consequence of activation of fructokinase with ATP consumption, intracellular phosphate depletion, and stimulation of AMP deaminase (39). Lowering uric acid in fructose-fed rats ameliorates much of the metabolic syndrome, including a reduction in BP, serum triglycerides, hyperinsulinemia, and weight gain (38). The rise in uric acid after fructose ingestion likely has a significant role in inducing insulin resistance via its effect to lower nitric oxide (35) and also possibly by a direct effect of uric acid on the adipocytes (Sautin et al., submitted).

In turn, fructose intake correlates well with the recent rise in the epidemic of metabolic syndrome, diabetes, hypertension, and kidney disease (40). Fructose constitutes 50% of table sugar and also is a major component in high-fructose corn syrup, which is used in the United States as a sweetener. Intake of fructose has increased markedly in the past few decades and correlates with the rising rates of metabolic syndrome...."

In a related area, here is a link to the proceedings of a "Food Addiction Summit" held several years ago. The list of presenters was pretty impressive. Sugar consumption was cited by a number of the researchers as a large part of the problem. http://www.foodaddictionsummit.org/index.htm

is associated with progressive renal disease in humans.

You have to already have it

That study fed rats 60% fructose.
on a 3000 calorie diet that is 450g of straight fructose a day. for 6 straight months

If you ate 450g of fructose a day for 6 months
you deserve to have diabetes.

as I said.
please interpret the study before you post garbage

Well, duh. The reason why they gave the rats high doses of fructose is because the rats have the uricase enzyme (humans do not--they have the gene for it but it is non-functional). In order to get the rats to produce high levels of uric acid, they had to either overdose them on fructose or suppress the uricase enzyme. They chose to overdose them on fructose and raise the level of uric acid to what would be an equivalent level in a human with a much lower dose of fructose. You don't know what you are talking about. (And, you are behaving in a fairly obnoxious fashion.)

Out of interest, what would that dose equate to in a human?

One of the researchers, Richard Johnson, M.D. writes: "A more targeted criticism of studies in laboratory animals is that the fructose is typically administered in large amounts to rats (such as 60 percent of their diet) when humans are ingesting only 10 to 15 percent of their [calories] in fructose. Recall, however, that humans are much more sensitive to the effects of fructose because they have the uricase mutation. When we inhibited uricase in rats, they developed features of metabolic syndrome with even low doses of fructose. Moreover, it is common in laboratory studies to give large doses of a factor in order to speed up the disease process. For example, insulin resistance occurs within two months in rats fed 60 percent fructose, but it takes 15 months if they are given a diet containing 15 percent fructose [the amount that the average person ingests on a daily basis--from all sources]...The effect of fructose on metabolism also takes time to develop [this was after a discussion of fructose, uric acid production and kidney disease]. Young, healthy people are relatively resistant to the effects of fructose, in part because they absorb less, and also because they tend to have healthy blood vessels. However, over time, the repeated assault associated with high sugar intake increases the proteins involved in fructose absorption and metabolism, and the effects of excessive fructose intake become much more apparent in individuals who are obese or [already] have insulin resistance... If your goal is to show that fructose is safe, then do a short term study in young healthy children or adults. In contrast, if you want to show that even short-term fructose can induce metabolic effects, then give the fructose to someone who is already obese and pre-diabetic..."

In other words, it would be difficult to determine what that level is because it makes a difference where you start metabolically and genetically. Some people are obviously much more sensitive, as he stated---age, health status, etc. It is also known that glucose enhances the uptake of fructose and sucrose is also 50% glucose (whereas, in the study, only fructose was administered). Nevertheless, in a parallel study, the researchers were able to induce metabolic syndrome in 25 percent of adult men in the study in TWO WEEKS when they supplemented their diet with 200 grams of fructose. Now this is the equivalent of about nine soft drinks a day and that is more than most people would ordinarily consume in a day. But consider that one piece of "Carrot Cake A La Mode" at The Keg restaurant chain, would contain 130 grams of fructose in the 260 grams of sugar that it contains. And food processors hide a LOT of sugar in their products. (Why do you think they need so much salt? I suspect that it is to cover what would otherwise be a too sweet taste.) While it is true that the 200 grams of fructose is more than most people would ingest in a day, Dr. Johnson notes, "...it is also true that metabolic syndrome normally takes years to develop and to see this occur in just two weeks was striking. Thankfully, these changes reversed [in the test subjects] when the study was over..."

Many who come to these forums are obese and pre-diabetic (indeed a number of them are already struggling with Type II diabetes). It is irresponsible to tell them that the only thing that matters is restricting their calories.

julies90

Personally, I think it makes a huge difference. I am not over weight, but I've always had a bit of extra...extra. I have tried doing diets before of general 1400 calories, prepackaged dinners, etc, but they never really did a lot. I always found that I'd plateau and get frustrated. I've been eating clean (80%, so not hardcore) for about 2 months now, I've lost 17 pounds (on someone whose not overweight, that's crazy) and my stomach is flatter then it has been for a longgg time. I also find I have totally lost my cravings for unhealthy food and I simply love to eat wonderful, delicious fruits, veggies, nuts, meats, etc. I love it.

Sarauk2sf

Many who come to these forums are obese and pre-diabetic (indeed a number of them are already struggling with Type II diabetes). It is irresponsible to tell them that the only thing that matters is restricting their calories.

I get the concept of the study - a bit too many extrapolations, assumptions and maybes....but worth further studies.

I think the point is adherence to a caloric deficit must be first and foremost the biggest priority for significantly overweight people. Dieting is over-whelming to many people and imposing too many restrictions can cause adherence problems. Sometimes, at first, the only thing that does matter is restricting calories.

jonnythan

I don't think anyone ever says that calorie intake is the only thing that matters. I've literally never seen anyone say that.

CoachReddy

However, Sara, some DO advocate diets consisting primarily of "junk foods", and because you/magerum/etc align yourselves with them, it leads many to believe that you don't disagree with that.

It really depends on the definition of junk food.

After all, nowadays the diet hipsters define:
Dairy
Beans/Peas
Breads
Pastas
Potatoes
Corn
Rice
Peanuts
Cereal (and all grain based things)

as junk food.

Its easy to strawman IIFYM as the pop tart diet. But when those that are on the bacon diet (cough paleo) shift the goal posts, redifing junk as all things not meat and some vegetables.

You can in fact eat an awesome super healthy diet consisting solely of what a bacon diet preacher terms junk food, without ever touching the sugary and fatty treats that were traditionally termed junk food.

totally agree. i don't consider any of the above junk food. i'm talking the pop tarts, ice cream, and fast foods of the world. not that you can't indulge occasionally, but you can't build a diet around those foods and expect to be as healthy as someone who eats primarily whole foods, whether paleo, vegan, or IIFYM (which in reality encompasses all "diets")

Don't be starting on my ice cream after we just started to play nice.

Ingredients list of one of my favorite ice creams:

Salty Caramel Ice Cream
Ingredients: Snowville Creamery Milk, Snowville Cream, Sugar, Light Brown Sugar, Madagascar Bourbon Pure Vanilla Extract (Water, Alcohol, Sugar, Vanilla Bean Extractives), Sea Salt, Tapioca Starch
Contains: Milk
**Gluten Free**


Not junk.....

I am not saying to eat it all the time...but it is not 'junk' food at all.

haha ok fair enough. i'm all about the playing nice. :happy:

2FatToRun

I went 6 months eating clean, no junk, and wasn't sick a day. Spent the last month eating a lot more junk and I've been sick most of the month.
It does matter!

God bless,
Karen

Congrats on your wiser decisions! I can say I know that good feeling again...but holy crap dont eat anaheim peppers they are very spicy omg I am on fire atm lol

CoachReddy

Many who come to these forums are obese and pre-diabetic (indeed a number of them are already struggling with Type II diabetes). It is irresponsible to tell them that the only thing that matters is restricting their calories.

I get the concept of the study - a bit too many extrapolations, assumptions and maybes....but worth further studies.

I think the point is adherence to a caloric deficit must be first and foremost the biggest priority for significantly overweight people. Dieting is over-whelming to many people and imposing too many restrictions can cause adherence problems. Sometimes, at first, the only thing that does matter is restricting calories.

QFT - agree wholeheartedly that calorie control is priority number one. always.

DatMurse

This article is from the Journal of the American Society of Nephrology. It is entitled, "Uric Acid, the Metabolic Syndrome and Renal Disease" http://jasn.asnjournals.org/content/17/12_suppl_3/S165.full

From the article: "...Recently, uric acid also was found to have a causal role in the metabolic syndrome that was induced experimentally by fructose (38). Fructose rapidly raises uric acid as a consequence of activation of fructokinase with ATP consumption, intracellular phosphate depletion, and stimulation of AMP deaminase (39). Lowering uric acid in fructose-fed rats ameliorates much of the metabolic syndrome, including a reduction in BP, serum triglycerides, hyperinsulinemia, and weight gain (38). The rise in uric acid after fructose ingestion likely has a significant role in inducing insulin resistance via its effect to lower nitric oxide (35) and also possibly by a direct effect of uric acid on the adipocytes (Sautin et al., submitted).

In turn, fructose intake correlates well with the recent rise in the epidemic of metabolic syndrome, diabetes, hypertension, and kidney disease (40). Fructose constitutes 50% of table sugar and also is a major component in high-fructose corn syrup, which is used in the United States as a sweetener. Intake of fructose has increased markedly in the past few decades and correlates with the rising rates of metabolic syndrome...."

In a related area, here is a link to the proceedings of a "Food Addiction Summit" held several years ago. The list of presenters was pretty impressive. Sugar consumption was cited by a number of the researchers as a large part of the problem. http://www.foodaddictionsummit.org/index.htm

is associated with progressive renal disease in humans.

You have to already have it

That study fed rats 60% fructose.
on a 3000 calorie diet that is 450g of straight fructose a day. for 6 straight months

If you ate 450g of fructose a day for 6 months
you deserve to have diabetes.

as I said.
please interpret the study before you post garbage

Well, duh. The reason why they gave the rats high doses of fructose is because the rats have the uricase enzyme (humans do not--they have the gene for it but it is non-functional). In order to get the rats to produce high levels of uric acid, they had to either overdose them on fructose or suppress the uricase enzyme. They chose to overdose them on fructose and raise the level of uric acid to what would be an equivalent level in a human with a much lower dose of fructose. You don't know what you are talking about. (And, you are behaving in a fairly obnoxious fashion.)

Out of interest, what would that dose equate to in a human?

One of the researchers, Richard Johnson, M.D. writes: "A more targeted criticism of studies in laboratory animals is that the fructose is typically administered in large amounts to rats (such as 60 percent of their diet) when humans are ingesting only 10 to 15 percent of their [calories] in fructose. Recall, however, that humans are much more sensitive to the effects of fructose because they have the uricase mutation. When we inhibited uricase in rats, they developed features of metabolic syndrome with even low doses of fructose. Moreover, it is common in laboratory studies to give large doses of a factor in order to speed up the disease process. For example, insulin resistance occurs within two months in rats fed 60 percent fructose, but it takes 15 months if they are given a diet containing 15 percent fructose [the amount that the average person ingests on a daily basis--from all sources]...The effect of fructose on metabolism also takes time to develop [this was after a discussion of fructose, uric acid production and kidney disease]. Young, healthy people are relatively resistant to the effects of fructose, in part because they absorb less, and also because they tend to have healthy blood vessels. However, over time, the repeated assault associated with high sugar intake increases the proteins involved in fructose absorption and metabolism, and the effects of excessive fructose intake become much more apparent in individuals who are obese or [already] have insulin resistance... If your goal is to show that fructose is safe, then do a short term study in young healthy children or adults. In contrast, if you want to show that even short-term fructose can induce metabolic effects, then give the fructose to someone who is already obese and pre-diabetic..."

In other words, it would be difficult to determine what that level is because it makes a difference where you start metabolically and genetically. Some people are obviously much more sensitive, as he stated---age, health status, etc. It is also known that glucose enhances the uptake of fructose and sucrose is also 50% glucose (whereas, in the study, only fructose was administered). Nevertheless, in a parallel study, the researchers were able to induce metabolic syndrome in 25 percent of adult men in the study in TWO WEEKS when they supplemented their diet with 200 grams of fructose. Now this is the equivalent of about nine soft drinks a day and that is more than most people would ordinarily consume in a day. But consider that one piece of "Carrot Cake A La Mode" at The Keg restaurant chain, would contain 130 grams of fructose in the 260 grams of sugar that it contains. And food processors hide a LOT of sugar in their products. (Why do you think they need so much salt? I suspect that it is to cover what would otherwise be a too sweet taste.) While it is true that the 200 grams of fructose is more than most people would ingest in a day, Dr. Johnson notes, "...it is also true that metabolic syndrome normally takes years to develop and to see this occur in just two weeks was striking. Thankfully, these changes reversed [in the test subjects] when the study was over..."

Many who come to these forums are obese and pre-diabetic (indeed a number of them are already struggling with Type II diabetes). It is irresponsible to tell them that the only thing that matters is restricting their calories.

all the information you said is a statement based off a 30+ year old study and was not done on humans
they had no differentiation between someone who was on a fructose diet and someone on other forms of carbohydrates.

the information i posted was a year ago that was done on humans.

anything that you state that originates from the study where the instruments used are considered part of the stone age is worthless.

thanks for playing, please try again when you have something that doesnt date back to the land before time

waldo56

I don't think anyone ever says that calorie intake is the only thing that matters. I've literally never seen anyone say that.

Well many/most do acknowledge (even among clean eaters) that calorie intake is the only thing that matters for weight loss/gain, with the caveat that noone is really interested in actually just losing weight; that losing fat is actual goal when someone desires weight loss, and for that, there is more to the story than just calories.

2FatToRun

Many who come to these forums are obese and pre-diabetic (indeed a number of them are already struggling with Type II diabetes). It is irresponsible to tell them that the only thing that matters is restricting their calories.

I get the concept of the study - a bit too many extrapolations, assumptions and maybes....but worth further studies.

I think the point is adherence to a caloric deficit must be first and foremost the biggest priority for significantly overweight people. Dieting is over-whelming to many people and imposing too many restrictions can cause adherence problems. Sometimes, at first, the only thing that does matter is restricting calories.

I totally agree with the above comment and for this reason.....I am way over weight and I cannot run and it is hard for me to really exercise compared to how I used to. So I am focusing my 1st 4 weeks on losing weight and walking/yoga light weight training so I do not hurt myself. My body esp my ankles are so weak from lack of exercise and the extreme weight they have to bear. But in the same aspect there is no way in hell I am going to lower my calories to 1200 a day I want to be healthy not starve and losing slower but eating and exercising correctly is what matters to me. I will never go over my calories if I cont to eat healthy but I sure as hell aint gonna starve by lowering RDI so low it could do more damage than good.

jonnythan

I don't think anyone ever says that calorie intake is the only thing that matters. I've literally never seen anyone say that.

Well many/most do acknowledge (even among clean eaters) that calorie intake is the only thing that matters for weight loss/gain, with the caveat that noone is really interested in actually just losing weight; that losing fat is actual goal when someone desires weight loss, and for that, there is more to the story than just calories.

Yes, and that's an important distinction. Calorie deficit is the only thing that really matters for weight loss. People say that often, and pretty much always say it to contrast it with proper eating that helps you lose fat preferentially over lean mass.

SanteMulberry

I answered it.

Your statement that someone WILL feel and look better eating "clean" has no evidence at all to back it up. Period. Look at all the people who do not eat "clean" who are in outstanding health and look and feel and perform at a high level.

there is plenty of evidence. mountains of it. so much that i'm not going to waste my time finding it for you.

as for people who don't eat "clean" in outstanding health... what like professional athletes? how many professional athletes make it past 80? I don't personally consider athletes to be a paragon of health. Fitness? Yeah... some... but health? Nah, not so much. It's really not healthy to train as hard as elite athletes do over a long period of time.

... Who brought up pro athletes?? I cannot understand how your brain works.

haha i just thought that's where you were going.

ok, if not athletes... then who are these people who do not eat "clean" who are in outstanding health and look and feel and perform at a high level?

albert nunez

I... what? Ok... same point as my athlete point... how many body builders make it past 80?

doesnt make as much sense because bodybuilding didnt become popular until 50s.

http://thepoormouth.blogspot.com/2012/07/oldest-living-olympians.html
here are the oldest living olympians

Jack LaLanne, a few years ago, would likely have qualified as one of the "oldest living" body builders (he died in 2011 at 96, and family members said that he performed his workout routine the day before he died). He was a fierce campaigner for high nutritional standards. He once said, "If man makes it, don't eat it."

jonnythan

I answered it.

Your statement that someone WILL feel and look better eating "clean" has no evidence at all to back it up. Period. Look at all the people who do not eat "clean" who are in outstanding health and look and feel and perform at a high level.

there is plenty of evidence. mountains of it. so much that i'm not going to waste my time finding it for you.

as for people who don't eat "clean" in outstanding health... what like professional athletes? how many professional athletes make it past 80? I don't personally consider athletes to be a paragon of health. Fitness? Yeah... some... but health? Nah, not so much. It's really not healthy to train as hard as elite athletes do over a long period of time.

... Who brought up pro athletes?? I cannot understand how your brain works.

haha i just thought that's where you were going.

ok, if not athletes... then who are these people who do not eat "clean" who are in outstanding health and look and feel and perform at a high level?

albert nunez

I... what? Ok... same point as my athlete point... how many body builders make it past 80?

doesnt make as much sense because bodybuilding didnt become popular until 50s.

http://thepoormouth.blogspot.com/2012/07/oldest-living-olympians.html
here are the oldest living olympians

Jack LaLanne, a few years ago, would likely have qualified as one of the "oldest living" body builders (he died in 2011 at 96, and family members said that he performed his workout routine the day before he died). He was a fierce campaigner for high nutritional standards. He once said, "If man makes it, don't eat it."

And George Burns lived to 100 but seemed to have a cigar in his mouth 24/7.

The plural of anecdote is not data.

CoachReddy

I answered it.

Your statement that someone WILL feel and look better eating "clean" has no evidence at all to back it up. Period. Look at all the people who do not eat "clean" who are in outstanding health and look and feel and perform at a high level.

there is plenty of evidence. mountains of it. so much that i'm not going to waste my time finding it for you.

as for people who don't eat "clean" in outstanding health... what like professional athletes? how many professional athletes make it past 80? I don't personally consider athletes to be a paragon of health. Fitness? Yeah... some... but health? Nah, not so much. It's really not healthy to train as hard as elite athletes do over a long period of time.

... Who brought up pro athletes?? I cannot understand how your brain works.

haha i just thought that's where you were going.

ok, if not athletes... then who are these people who do not eat "clean" who are in outstanding health and look and feel and perform at a high level?

albert nunez

I... what? Ok... same point as my athlete point... how many body builders make it past 80?

doesnt make as much sense because bodybuilding didnt become popular until 50s.

http://thepoormouth.blogspot.com/2012/07/oldest-living-olympians.html
here are the oldest living olympians

Jack LaLanne, a few years ago, would likely have qualified as one of the "oldest living" body builders (he died in 2011 at 96, and family members said that he performed his workout routine the day before he died). He was a fierce campaigner for high nutritional standards. He once said, "If man makes it, don't eat it."

And George Burns lived to 100 but seemed to have a cigar in his mouth 24/7.

The plural of anecdote is not data.

you're right. a fast food based diet may not kill you.

but it might.

so you can tempt fate or you can skip the gamble altogether.

SanteMulberry

Many who come to these forums are obese and pre-diabetic (indeed a number of them are already struggling with Type II diabetes). It is irresponsible to tell them that the only thing that matters is restricting their calories.

I get the concept of the study - a bit too many extrapolations, assumptions and maybes....but worth further studies.

I think the point is adherence to a caloric deficit must be first and foremost the biggest priority for significantly overweight people. Dieting is over-whelming to many people and imposing too many restrictions can cause adherence problems. Sometimes, at first, the only thing that does matter is restricting calories.

I can tell you that I tried that many times--only to fail and yo-yo for years. Then I actually studied the problem and determined that I needed a radical approach (as I was only getting sicker through all my former failures). So I did it--I eliminated the foods that were making me sick. And in three years of being totally off of junk food and sugar, I have NOT ONCE seen the need to jeopardize what I have been able to obtain. The "proof of the pudding is in the eating" and for me, it is significant that when I totally stopped eating sucrose (in any form) not only did my blood pressure fall to normal very quickly, but I also had NO problem sticking to a calorie-reduced diet. I'm not here trying to win an argument--I'm trying to help people to better health.

jonnythan

I answered it.

Your statement that someone WILL feel and look better eating "clean" has no evidence at all to back it up. Period. Look at all the people who do not eat "clean" who are in outstanding health and look and feel and perform at a high level.

there is plenty of evidence. mountains of it. so much that i'm not going to waste my time finding it for you.

as for people who don't eat "clean" in outstanding health... what like professional athletes? how many professional athletes make it past 80? I don't personally consider athletes to be a paragon of health. Fitness? Yeah... some... but health? Nah, not so much. It's really not healthy to train as hard as elite athletes do over a long period of time.

... Who brought up pro athletes?? I cannot understand how your brain works.

haha i just thought that's where you were going.

ok, if not athletes... then who are these people who do not eat "clean" who are in outstanding health and look and feel and perform at a high level?

albert nunez

I... what? Ok... same point as my athlete point... how many body builders make it past 80?

doesnt make as much sense because bodybuilding didnt become popular until 50s.

http://thepoormouth.blogspot.com/2012/07/oldest-living-olympians.html
here are the oldest living olympians

Jack LaLanne, a few years ago, would likely have qualified as one of the "oldest living" body builders (he died in 2011 at 96, and family members said that he performed his workout routine the day before he died). He was a fierce campaigner for high nutritional standards. He once said, "If man makes it, don't eat it."

And George Burns lived to 100 but seemed to have a cigar in his mouth 24/7.

The plural of anecdote is not data.

you're right. a fast food based diet may not kill you.

but it might.

so you can tempt fate or you can skip the gamble altogether.

What's "a fast food diet"?

And it "might"? What happened to "you WILL look and feel better if you don't eat fast food"?

CoachReddy

What's "a fast food diet"?

And it "might"? What happened to "you WILL look and feel better if you don't eat fast food"?

your diet is a fast food based diet, and those are two different statements:

1) you may or may not die from eating a fast-food based diet.

2) you will look and feel better if you eat a whole food diet.

both accurate.

DatMurse

Many who come to these forums are obese and pre-diabetic (indeed a number of them are already struggling with Type II diabetes). It is irresponsible to tell them that the only thing that matters is restricting their calories.

I get the concept of the study - a bit too many extrapolations, assumptions and maybes....but worth further studies.

I think the point is adherence to a caloric deficit must be first and foremost the biggest priority for significantly overweight people. Dieting is over-whelming to many people and imposing too many restrictions can cause adherence problems. Sometimes, at first, the only thing that does matter is restricting calories.

I can tell you that I tried that many times--only to fail and yo-yo for years. Then I actually studied the problem and determined that I needed a radical approach (as I was only getting sicker through all my former failures). So I did it--I eliminated the foods that were making me sick. And in three years of being totally off of junk food and sugar, I have NOT ONCE seen the need to jeopardize what I have been able to obtain. The "proof of the pudding is in the eating" and for me, it is significant that when I totally stopped eating sucrose (in any form) not only did my blood pressure fall to normal very quickly, but I also had NO problem sticking to a calorie-reduced diet. I'm not here trying to win an argument--I'm trying to help people to better health.

jonnythan

What's "a fast food diet"?

And it "might"? What happened to "you WILL look and feel better if you don't eat fast food"?

your diet is a fast food based diet, and those are two different statements:

1) you may or may not die from eating a fast-food based diet.

2) you will look and feel better if you eat a whole food diet.

both accurate.

A "fast food based diet"? How do you figure that?

Most of my meals are not fast food.

SideSteel

My this thread got good.