Clean vs. Junk - does it really matter?
Options
Replies
-
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?
lolwut? how did you come to THAT decision?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/
Not a fair test--Einstein is dead.
And just what original research in a laboratory has your "expert" conducted? :laugh: 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?
lolwut? how did you come to THAT decision?
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/
Not a fair test--Einstein is dead. And just what original research in a laboratory has your "expert" conducted? :laugh:
Check the sources cited before gloating.0 -
he talked about the evidence and the weakness of the control of his studies.
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/
Not a fair test--Einstein is dead. And just what original research in a laboratory has your "expert" conducted? :laugh:
the newer studies are against him too
http://www.thestar.com/life/health_wellness/2012/07/24/fructose_not_a_metabolic_evil_scientists_say.html
this is a news article but it is based off of the studies i sent you earlier0 -
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?
lolwut? how did you come to THAT decision?
Well, it's illegal to use hormones in chicken sold in the US. So there's the hormones thing.
As for antibiotics, do you want to take a stab at showing us some evidence that there are measurable/significant levels of antibiotics in an actual chicken breast sold at McDs?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/
Not a fair test--Einstein is dead. And just what original research in a laboratory has your "expert" conducted? :laugh:
Check the sources cited before gloating.
I already did--I see that he has a couple of degrees in nutrition. So do dieticians and they are often among the dumbest people I have ever met. So what?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/
Not a fair test--Einstein is dead. And just what original research in a laboratory has your "expert" conducted? :laugh:
Check the sources cited before gloating.
I already did--I see that he has a couple of degrees in nutrition. So what?
I *said*, the sources cited not his credentials.......................
and...a couple of degrees in nutrition....so what?????
ETA: as you edited your post - he backs his articles/conclusions up with studies that actually support what he says, without cherry picking,....that's the big difference.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/
Not a fair test--Einstein is dead. And just what original research in a laboratory has your "expert" conducted? :laugh:
Check the sources cited before gloating.
I already did--I see that he has a couple of degrees in nutrition. So what?
The sources cited not his credentials.......................
and...a couple of degrees in nutrition....so what?????
You do not think that those doing active research and are linking excessive fructose consumption (through the eating of sucrose) with disease don't also have co-researchers with the same credentials?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/
Not a fair test--Einstein is dead. And just what original research in a laboratory has your "expert" conducted? :laugh:
Check the sources cited before gloating.
I already did--I see that he has a couple of degrees in nutrition. So what?
The sources cited not his credentials.......................
and...a couple of degrees in nutrition....so what?????
You do not think that those doing active research and are linking excessive fructose consumption (through the eating of sucrose) with disease don't also have co-researchers with the same credentials?
I have yet to see those studies cited.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/
Not a fair test--Einstein is dead. And just what original research in a laboratory has your "expert" conducted? :laugh:
Check the sources cited before gloating.
I already did--I see that he has a couple of degrees in nutrition. So do dieticians and they are often among the dumbest people I have ever met. So what?
It's dietitian, not dietician. Dietitians are actually generally very knowledgeable on the subject of nutrition. Go figure!
Anyway, Alan Aragon is one of the most respected people in the business. And he probably reads and intelligently interprets more raw nutrition research than everyone on MFP combined. The guy seriously knows his ****.0 -
so the people who back up lustigs study are wrong too.
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/
Not a fair test--Einstein is dead. And just what original research in a laboratory has your "expert" conducted? :laugh:
Check the sources cited before gloating.
I already did--I see that he has a couple of degrees in nutrition. So do dieticians and they are often among the dumbest people I have ever met. So what?Alan Aragon has over 20 years of success in the fitness field. He earned his Bachelor and Master of Science in Nutrition with top honors. Alan is a continuing education provider for the Commission on Dietetic Registration, National Academy of Sports Medicine, American Council on Exercise, and National Strength & Conditioning Association. Alan recently lectured to clinicians at the FDA and the annual conference of the Los Angeles Dietetic Association
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2013-01-07/dr-robert-lustig-fat-chance-beating-odds-against-sugar-processed-food-obesity-and-0
that is a talk between lustig a man of old world healthcare and nutrition(like yourself)
and
Dr. Sievenpiper who did studies on human beings with up to date instruments0 -
i would also like to add if my life's work is becoming false i would be mad too0
-
Anyway, Alan Aragon is one of the most respected people in the business. And he probably reads and intelligently interprets more raw nutrition research than everyone on MFP combined. The guy seriously knows his ****.
^ Agreed.0 -
It's dietitian, not dietician. Dietitians are actually generally very knowledgeable on the subject of nutrition. Go figure!
Anyway, Alan Aragon is one of the most respected people in the business. And he probably reads and intelligently interprets more raw nutrition research than everyone on MFP combined. The guy seriously knows his ****.
Just pointing out real quick that dietician and dietitian are both correct. Dietician has been used since 1917.
Continue on..... (trying to catch up on all the pages)0 -
It's dietitian, not dietician. Dietitians are actually generally very knowledgeable on the subject of nutrition. Go figure!
Anyway, Alan Aragon is one of the most respected people in the business. And he probably reads and intelligently interprets more raw nutrition research than everyone on MFP combined. The guy seriously knows his ****.
still an 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 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/
Not a fair test--Einstein is dead. And just what original research in a laboratory has your "expert" conducted? :laugh:
Check the sources cited before gloating.
I already did--I see that he has a couple of degrees in nutrition. So do dieticians and they are often among the dumbest people I have ever met. So what?
It's dietitian, not dietician. Dietitians are actually generally very knowledgeable on the subject of nutrition. Go figure!
Anyway, Alan Aragon is one of the most respected people in the business. And he probably reads and intelligently interprets more raw nutrition research than everyone on MFP combined. The guy seriously knows his ****.
Resorting to criticizing someone's typos is pretty low, don't you think? Well, I'm happy for Mr. Aragon and I will be happy to read his article---tomorrow. I'm going to bed right now as I have had a very tiring day. Good night.
0 -
It's dietitian, not dietician. Dietitians are actually generally very knowledgeable on the subject of nutrition. Go figure!
Anyway, Alan Aragon is one of the most respected people in the business. And he probably reads and intelligently interprets more raw nutrition research than everyone on MFP combined. The guy seriously knows his ****.
still an appeal to authority
Thank you for pointing that out, Coach Reddy. Now, I really must "hit the hay." 
To you all. 0 -
It's dietitian, not dietician. Dietitians are actually generally very knowledgeable on the subject of nutrition. Go figure!
Anyway, Alan Aragon is one of the most respected people in the business. And he probably reads and intelligently interprets more raw nutrition research than everyone on MFP combined. The guy seriously knows his ****.
Just pointing out real quick that dietician and dietitian are both correct. Dietician has been used since 1917.
Continue on..... (trying to catch up on all the pages)
I know a bunch of actual trained and educated dietitians. It's definitely not dietician. That's some weird combination that's like "physician of diet" that makes no sense.
Dietician is considered a misspelling.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?
lolwut? how did you come to THAT decision?
Because it is true. Hormones aren't used in chicken legally. Antibiotics must be allowed to "withdraw" prior to slaughter. McD does their own testing, if FSIS finds slaughtered test birds with either in a poultry farm.... Deep dooodooo.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