Clean vs. Junk - does it really matter?
Options
Replies
-
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
You have to already have itis associated with progressive renal disease in humans.
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
The researcher I quoted, Richard J. Johnson, M.D., is very up-to-date in this field. He was one of the presenters at the conference I linked to earlier (which was held in late 2009). I don't know what you are trying to prove but you are failing (and it really isn't necessary to be so rude). Are you a nationally recognized nephrologist like Dr. Johnson?0 -
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.
you eat fast food multiple times a day on average.0 -
Are you a nationally recognized nephrologist like Dr. Johnson?
Strong appeal to authority.0 -
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
You have to already have itis associated with progressive renal disease in humans.
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
The researcher I quoted, Richard J. Johnson, M.D., is very up-to-date in this field. He was one of the presenters at the conference I linked to earlier (which was held in late 2009). I don't know what you are trying to prove but you are failing (and it really isn't necessary to be so rude). Are you a nationally recognized nephrologist like Dr. Johnson?
einstein also coudlnt tie his shoes, but i can
einstein is smarter than him
i am smarter than einstein.
therefore i win0 -
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:
0 -
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.
you eat fast food multiple times a day on average.
I eat non-fast food even more multiple times per day on average.
So I guess by your logic I have a non-fast-food based diet.
Er... wait.0 -
Are you a nationally recognized nephrologist like Dr. Johnson?
Strong appeal to authority.
The Greek Sophists were able to prove and disprove absurdities using formal rules of logic. Many here are wont to appeal to authority when THEY want to make a point but when the opposition scores a point, citing an expert, they cry, "Appeal to authority!!" A bit hypocritical.0 -
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.
For *you* being the operative word. There are many many people on here who have significantly improved health markers from just losing weight. If certain foods are a trigger or are detrimental to an individual's health due to certain individual factors, no-one is saying to eat them. You are not the only one here trying to help people to better health, you realize that?
Mental health is also important.0 -
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.
you eat fast food multiple times a day on average.
I eat non-fast food even more multiple times per day on average.
So I guess by your logic I have a non-fast-food based diet.
Er... wait.
whatever helps you sleep at night. :flowerforyou:0 -
My this thread got good.
LOL!
Yep.0 -
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
You have to already have itis associated with progressive renal disease in humans.
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
The researcher I quoted, Richard J. Johnson, M.D., is very up-to-date in this field. He was one of the presenters at the conference I linked to earlier (which was held in late 2009). I don't know what you are trying to prove but you are failing (and it really isn't necessary to be so rude). Are you a nationally recognized nephrologist like Dr. Johnson?
einstein also coudlnt tie his shoes, but i can
einstein is smarter than him
i am smarter than einstein.
therefore i win
Smarter? No. Arrogant? Definitely. Do you really think you have more credibility in this discussion? Please post your credentials.0 -
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.
you eat fast food multiple times a day on average.
I eat non-fast food even more multiple times per day on average.
So I guess by your logic I have a non-fast-food based diet.
Er... wait.
whatever helps you sleep at night. :flowerforyou:
I'm clearly comfortable with my food consumption :laugh:
I'm trying to get to the bottom of your term. You call my diet "fast food based" even though most of what I eat is not fast food. You call most of what I eat "junk food" basically because a 5-ounce chicken breast becomes "junk" when it's cooked with sodium phosphates. The mind boggles.0 -
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.
you eat fast food multiple times a day on average.
I eat non-fast food even more multiple times per day on average.
So I guess by your logic I have a non-fast-food based diet.
Er... wait.
whatever helps you sleep at night. :flowerforyou:
I'm clearly comfortable with my food consumption :laugh:
I'm trying to get to the bottom of your term. You call my diet "fast food based" even though most of what I eat is not fast food. You call most of what I eat "junk food" basically because a 5-ounce chicken breast becomes "junk" when it's cooked with sodium phosphates. The mind boggles.
it's really not complicated. you're just being intentionally obtuse. :flowerforyou:0 -
No, I absolutely do not, and in your zealous hatred of me you completely misunderstand everything I post and advocate.
I advocate a diet where the person sets appropriate macronutrient goals to achieve their desired results. How they get there really does not matter. I strongly encourage people to eat vegetables. I also encourage them to eat the foods they love, whatever those are, in ways that allow them to hit their macronutrient goals.
I also encourage people to eat fast food if they want. Fast food is not automatically junk. Grilled chicken sandwiches, tacos, broiled fish and shrimp, ice cream, and hamburgers are not junk food if they fit into your macronutrient profile, full stop. For some reason you think a grilled chicken sandwich from McD's is "junk food" but a grilled chicken sandwich you make at home is not, which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
You have decided to hate me and everything you understand or interpret about what I say is completely, 100% irrational.
I agree with you that people can make decent choices while eating out/fast food, however, some big differences between the "grilled" chicken sandwich at McDonald's and the one at home are things like: trans fat vs saturated fat, hormones & antibiotics in the chicken, and MSG. All of which may elicit hormone response and/or inflammation. So, while your macros may be the same, the effect could be drastically different.0 -
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
You have to already have itis associated with progressive renal disease in humans.
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
The researcher I quoted, Richard J. Johnson, M.D., is very up-to-date in this field. He was one of the presenters at the conference I linked to earlier (which was held in late 2009). I don't know what you are trying to prove but you are failing (and it really isn't necessary to be so rude). Are you a nationally recognized nephrologist like Dr. Johnson?
einstein also coudlnt tie his shoes, but i can
einstein is smarter than him
i am smarter than einstein.
therefore i win
Smarter? No. Arrogant? Definitely. Do you really think you have more credibility in this discussion? Please post your credentials.
i just did. i can tie my shoes and einstein cant
here is my expert
http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/02/19/a-retrospective-of-the-fructose-alarmism-debate/0 -
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 may look and feel better if you eat primarily a whole food diet.
both accurate.
There...fixed it for you
0 -
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.
For *you* being the operative word. There are many many people on here who have significantly improved health markers from just losing weight. If certain foods are a trigger or are detrimental to an individual's health due to certain individual factors, no-one is saying to eat them. You are not the only one here trying to help people to better health, you realize that?
Mental health is also important.
And do you really think that junk food and sugar help people to have better mental health?? Jack LaLanne said that he was a violent out-of-control 15-year-old "junk food junkie" until he learned to eat right and exercise.0 -
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.
For *you* being the operative word. There are many many people on here who have significantly improved health markers from just losing weight. If certain foods are a trigger or are detrimental to an individual's health due to certain individual factors, no-one is saying to eat them. You are not the only one here trying to help people to better health, you realize that?
Mental health is also important.
And do you really think that junk food and sugar help people to have better mental health?? Jack LaLanne said that he was a violent out-of-control 15-year-old "junk food junkie" until he learned to eat right and exercise.
yea and ronnie coleman says he isnt on steroids
your point?0 -
Bump bump bump, some interesting reading here. I'll read it before I go to bed. 0
-
No, I absolutely do not, and in your zealous hatred of me you completely misunderstand everything I post and advocate.
I advocate a diet where the person sets appropriate macronutrient goals to achieve their desired results. How they get there really does not matter. I strongly encourage people to eat vegetables. I also encourage them to eat the foods they love, whatever those are, in ways that allow them to hit their macronutrient goals.
I also encourage people to eat fast food if they want. Fast food is not automatically junk. Grilled chicken sandwiches, tacos, broiled fish and shrimp, ice cream, and hamburgers are not junk food if they fit into your macronutrient profile, full stop. For some reason you think a grilled chicken sandwich from McD's is "junk food" but a grilled chicken sandwich you make at home is not, which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
You have decided to hate me and everything you understand or interpret about what I say is completely, 100% irrational.
I agree with you that people can make decent choices while eating out/fast food, however, some big differences between the "grilled" chicken sandwich at McDonald's and the one at home are things like: trans fat vs saturated fat, hormones & antibiotics in the chicken, and MSG. All of which may elicit hormone response and/or inflammation. So, while your macros may be the same, the effect could be drastically different.
The grilled chicken fillet at McD's has 0g saturated fat, 0g trans fat, and no MSG. I see no reason to believe that there are hormones and antibiotics in the sandwich.
The piece of grilled chicken I cooked a few days ago has the exact same saturated fat, trans fat, MSG, and hormone/antibiotic content.
So........ what were you saying, exactly?0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.4K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 983 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions