Real Reasons for Obesity
Replies
-
I always felt the main reason I got obese was much more to do with what was going on in my head than anything else. I lost weight eating processed carbs, pizza and burgers (not exclusively
) I just got to a point where I could control the amount I was eating. 0 -
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »missblondi2u wrote: »This is definitely not true for me! I find potatoes very filling!
Besides, a roughly 6 oz bakes russet potato with the skin has 3.8g fiber, 926mg potassium, 4.3g protein, 27% of recommended Vitamin C, and very little fat. What's so empty about that?
Generally, a potato for example is filling because there's a lot of volume but it digests very quickly and leaves you hungry. Unless you put some butter, sour cream, etc., or eat it with some meat or something with a lower GI.
But at the end of the day if it works for you, keep it up.
Potatoes have fiber and "resistant starch" which makes them slower to digest. Add a bit of butter and/or sour cream and you slow the digestion further (as you have noted). Potatoes are actually a pretty good bang for your calorie buck as long as you don't fry them. The high temperatures of frying denature many frying oils (many of them are unhealthy to start with because of production methods) and make those potatoes somewhat unhealthy.
Potatoes don't have a great deal of resistant starch unless they are boiled and then cooled. They are fairly quick digesting if not.
Compared to what? If you eat the skins that brings the glycemic value down and if you add fat, that brings it down further. While it is true that they wouldn't have as much resistant starch as beans or the same kind, it is better to eat a potato than a handful of Oreos. :-)0 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »Ultimately, it is "calories in-calories out" but there are a great many things that influence both sides of the equation. Fiber in a carbohydrate food lowers its effective "calories-in" because, while they measure calories in a lab, by burning it in a bomb-calorimeter, it doesn't take into account that fiber burns but it doesn't provide calories (wood burns quite well and provides lots of heat, but would not provide calories if we would eat it).
In addition, food that is high in fructose tends to make most mammals sluggish because of the effect it has on ATP production and that would mean fewer calories burned. Watching slim children and chubby children and the way that they eat and move shows how we vary in terms of energy production. It has been observed, in several studies, that slim children move a lot more than chubby children. It has also been observed that, in chubby children, eating sugary foods seemed to make them more sluggish and in slim children, eating sugary foods (especially chocolate--likely because of the caffeine boost) often seemed to make them even more active. Eventually, even the slim children can become plump if they continuously eat too many sweets without burning them off. A number of studies have focused on the observation that many children do not become fat until they enter school and are forced to become more sedentary.
There are many who are genetically pre-disposed to "diabesity". There is an obvious survival-advantage for those with this genetic makeup since, historically, food security has plagued most populations in the past. Disease though, is often the result when those individuals are constantly exposed to plentiful supplies of calorie dense-nutrient poor food. Researchers have coined the word "diabesity" to refer to what they believe is essentially the same disease--the only difference being that those who are simply obese have adequate insulin supplies--at least for a time. They just get fatter as the body converts excess blood glucose into triglycerides and stuffs them into fat cells. But having to battle constant high blood glucose takes a toll as the body's cells become more and more insensitive to the effects of insulin. Type II diabetes starts and worsens, if the diet is not addressed. Finally, the beta cells in the pancreas are decimated due to having to constantly battle high blood glucose, and the Type II diabetic, becomes insulin-dependent.
Not only how much you eat but WHAT you eat is important to the complex bio-chemistry of "calories-in-calories-out". If it was so simple as eating less, everyone would lose weight and keep it off. Those who are successful in keeping excess fat off their bodies address what they eat as well as increasing the output of calories. The output part of the equation becomes more and more difficult in the aging body.
Yes, biochemistry is very complex and most of what you have put here really isn't true.
Prove it.
It's ironic you don't know which way this goes.
You are the one making the assertion that the information I presented was "false". Prove your assertion, by presenting contradictory information, please. Otherwise, you might want to keep your "counsel" to yourself as it will be ignored by most intelligent people.
No, claims require proof and claims introduced without proof can be dismissed without proof. That's a basic tenant of debate. I have merely indicated that your claims are incorrect.
The school boy fallacy you add is also misplaced.
Well, perhaps if this was a formal debate forum (which it is not) your claim would stand, but since it is an informal discussion forum, it does not. It is just a bit of triumphalism.
Fine, I'll just list a major issue and that is that it's not carbohydrate, nor the type of carbohydrate, intake that's the issue in the development of insulin resistance and Type II Diabetes. Just do a quick research on the medical literature and you will find that obesity (in particular visceral fat levels), drugs, genetics, and activity levels are your main risk factors with PCOS, smoking, stress and pregnancy as other large contributors. I imagine if you talk to the frutarians you will find that they all have extremely high levels of fructose intake and they do not tend to have issues with IR or type II diabetes unless they are also obese, which seems to be rare from my understanding.
No--but then there is the problem of the link between high fructose consumption and pancreatic cancer. Steve Jobs was a fruitarian for many years--apples were his favorite fruit. He even named his company after them. :-) Researchers have already warned about the connection between high fructose consumption and pancreatic cancer.0 -
SanteMulberry wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »Ultimately, it is "calories in-calories out" but there are a great many things that influence both sides of the equation. Fiber in a carbohydrate food lowers its effective "calories-in" because, while they measure calories in a lab, by burning it in a bomb-calorimeter, it doesn't take into account that fiber burns but it doesn't provide calories (wood burns quite well and provides lots of heat, but would not provide calories if we would eat it).
In addition, food that is high in fructose tends to make most mammals sluggish because of the effect it has on ATP production and that would mean fewer calories burned. Watching slim children and chubby children and the way that they eat and move shows how we vary in terms of energy production. It has been observed, in several studies, that slim children move a lot more than chubby children. It has also been observed that, in chubby children, eating sugary foods seemed to make them more sluggish and in slim children, eating sugary foods (especially chocolate--likely because of the caffeine boost) often seemed to make them even more active. Eventually, even the slim children can become plump if they continuously eat too many sweets without burning them off. A number of studies have focused on the observation that many children do not become fat until they enter school and are forced to become more sedentary.
There are many who are genetically pre-disposed to "diabesity". There is an obvious survival-advantage for those with this genetic makeup since, historically, food security has plagued most populations in the past. Disease though, is often the result when those individuals are constantly exposed to plentiful supplies of calorie dense-nutrient poor food. Researchers have coined the word "diabesity" to refer to what they believe is essentially the same disease--the only difference being that those who are simply obese have adequate insulin supplies--at least for a time. They just get fatter as the body converts excess blood glucose into triglycerides and stuffs them into fat cells. But having to battle constant high blood glucose takes a toll as the body's cells become more and more insensitive to the effects of insulin. Type II diabetes starts and worsens, if the diet is not addressed. Finally, the beta cells in the pancreas are decimated due to having to constantly battle high blood glucose, and the Type II diabetic, becomes insulin-dependent.
Not only how much you eat but WHAT you eat is important to the complex bio-chemistry of "calories-in-calories-out". If it was so simple as eating less, everyone would lose weight and keep it off. Those who are successful in keeping excess fat off their bodies address what they eat as well as increasing the output of calories. The output part of the equation becomes more and more difficult in the aging body.
Yes, biochemistry is very complex and most of what you have put here really isn't true.
Prove it.
It's ironic you don't know which way this goes.
You are the one making the assertion that the information I presented was "false". Prove your assertion, by presenting contradictory information, please. Otherwise, you might want to keep your "counsel" to yourself as it will be ignored by most intelligent people.
No, claims require proof and claims introduced without proof can be dismissed without proof. That's a basic tenant of debate. I have merely indicated that your claims are incorrect.
The school boy fallacy you add is also misplaced.
Well, perhaps if this was a formal debate forum (which it is not) your claim would stand, but since it is an informal discussion forum, it does not. It is just a bit of triumphalism.
Fine, I'll just list a major issue and that is that it's not carbohydrate, nor the type of carbohydrate, intake that's the issue in the development of insulin resistance and Type II Diabetes. Just do a quick research on the medical literature and you will find that obesity (in particular visceral fat levels), drugs, genetics, and activity levels are your main risk factors with PCOS, smoking, stress and pregnancy as other large contributors. I imagine if you talk to the frutarians you will find that they all have extremely high levels of fructose intake and they do not tend to have issues with IR or type II diabetes unless they are also obese, which seems to be rare from my understanding.
No--but then there is the problem of the link between high fructose consumption and pancreatic cancer. Steve Jobs was a fruitarian for many years--apples were his favorite fruit. He even named his company after them. :-) Researchers have already warned about the connection between high fructose consumption and pancreatic cancer.
Not sure the link or the research but I do know that the vast majority of those who ger pancreatic cancer are not fruitarian. Fruitarians are pretty rare and I know several people who had pancreatic cancer and it usually doesn't take long for them to die once it's diagnosed.
Please post a link to what you mention since I would be interested in seeing the research you mentioned.
Also, do you mean consumption of regular fructose in high qualities of consumption of higg fructose corn syrup? I could see the latter being an issue before the former.0 -
No--but then there is the problem of the link between high fructose consumption and pancreatic cancer. Steve Jobs was a fruitarian for many years--apples were his favorite fruit. He even named his company after them. :-) Researchers have already warned about the connection between high fructose consumption and pancreatic cancer.Not sure the link or the research but I do know that the vast majority of those who ger pancreatic cancer are not fruitarian. Fruitarians are pretty rare and I know several people who had pancreatic cancer and it usually doesn't take long for them to die once it's diagnosed.
Please post a link to what you mention since I would be interested in seeing the research you mentioned.
Also, do you mean consumption of regular fructose in high qualities of consumption of higg fructose corn syrup? I could see the latter being an issue before the former.
http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/70/15/6368.long
There would obviously be some protective effects from fruit-eating over eating nutrient-poor food. As an example, strawberries contain a polyphenol called ellagic acid which inhibits angiogenesis. As such, it would fight metastasis. There is also the fact that not all of the fructose in fruit would be available for absorption since there would probably be a portion that remained encased in fiber (and end up in the toilet). As sucrose is 50% fructose, and would be unlikely to provide these mitigating circumstances, it might, in fact, be more damaging. High fructose corn syrup, as you have noted, is probably even worse. But someone eating pound after pound of fruit every day, would be likely to confront some of the same issues. Interestingly, the actor Ashton Kutcher, who played Jobs in one of the two biopics about him (it was not as well received as the Michael Fassbender version), was interested in getting into character for the role. He decided to adopt the fruitarian diet that Jobs followed, as I said, for many years. Here's a U.S. News and World Report on Kutcher's experience: http://health.usnews.com/health-news/articles/2013/02/07/ashton-kutchers-fruitarian-diet-what-went-wrong
0 -
0
-
SanteMulberry wrote: »No--but then there is the problem of the link between high fructose consumption and pancreatic cancer. Steve Jobs was a fruitarian for many years--apples were his favorite fruit. He even named his company after them. :-) Researchers have already warned about the connection between high fructose consumption and pancreatic cancer.Not sure the link or the research but I do know that the vast majority of those who ger pancreatic cancer are not fruitarian. Fruitarians are pretty rare and I know several people who had pancreatic cancer and it usually doesn't take long for them to die once it's diagnosed.
Please post a link to what you mention since I would be interested in seeing the research you mentioned.
Also, do you mean consumption of regular fructose in high qualities of consumption of higg fructose corn syrup? I could see the latter being an issue before the former.
http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/70/15/6368.long
There would obviously be some protective effects from fruit-eating over eating nutrient-poor food. As an example, strawberries contain a polyphenol called ellagic acid which inhibits angiogenesis. As such, it would fight metastasis. There is also the fact that not all of the fructose in fruit would be available for absorption since there would probably be a portion that remained encased in fiber (and end up in the toilet). As sucrose is 50% fructose, and would be unlikely to provide these mitigating circumstances, it might, in fact, be more damaging. High fructose corn syrup, as you have noted, is probably even worse. But someone eating pound after pound of fruit every day, would be likely to confront some of the same issues. Interestingly, the actor Ashton Kutcher, who played Jobs in one of the two biopics about him (it was not as well received as the Michael Fassbender version), was interested in getting into character for the role. He decided to adopt the fruitarian diet that Jobs followed, as I said, for many years. Here's a U.S. News and World Report on Kutcher's experience: http://health.usnews.com/health-news/articles/2013/02/07/ashton-kutchers-fruitarian-diet-what-went-wrong
Thanks I'll take a longer look later but it seems that it promotes growth but does not necessarily cause the cancer cells. Also my quick read seems to indicate they are only concerned about refined rather than natural state. This might mean is only refined fructose that can be absorbed in high enough quantities to be an issue or perhaps most people wouldn't eat enough fruit.0 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »No--but then there is the problem of the link between high fructose consumption and pancreatic cancer. Steve Jobs was a fruitarian for many years--apples were his favorite fruit. He even named his company after them. :-) Researchers have already warned about the connection between high fructose consumption and pancreatic cancer.Not sure the link or the research but I do know that the vast majority of those who ger pancreatic cancer are not fruitarian. Fruitarians are pretty rare and I know several people who had pancreatic cancer and it usually doesn't take long for them to die once it's diagnosed.
Please post a link to what you mention since I would be interested in seeing the research you mentioned.
Also, do you mean consumption of regular fructose in high qualities of consumption of higg fructose corn syrup? I could see the latter being an issue before the former.
http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/70/15/6368.long
There would obviously be some protective effects from fruit-eating over eating nutrient-poor food. As an example, strawberries contain a polyphenol called ellagic acid which inhibits angiogenesis. As such, it would fight metastasis. There is also the fact that not all of the fructose in fruit would be available for absorption since there would probably be a portion that remained encased in fiber (and end up in the toilet). As sucrose is 50% fructose, and would be unlikely to provide these mitigating circumstances, it might, in fact, be more damaging. High fructose corn syrup, as you have noted, is probably even worse. But someone eating pound after pound of fruit every day, would be likely to confront some of the same issues. Interestingly, the actor Ashton Kutcher, who played Jobs in one of the two biopics about him (it was not as well received as the Michael Fassbender version), was interested in getting into character for the role. He decided to adopt the fruitarian diet that Jobs followed, as I said, for many years. Here's a U.S. News and World Report on Kutcher's experience: http://health.usnews.com/health-news/articles/2013/02/07/ashton-kutchers-fruitarian-diet-what-went-wrong
Thanks I'll take a longer look later but it seems that it promotes growth but does not necessarily cause the cancer cells. Also my quick read seems to indicate they are only concerned about refined rather than natural state. This might mean is only refined fructose that can be absorbed in high enough quantities to be an issue or perhaps most people wouldn't eat enough fruit.
That research concludes that these specific cancer cells can metabolise fructose. That's not at all new - what is of interest is this:
"Conventionally, fructose and glucose have been considered as interchangeable monosaccharides that are both metabolized equivalently in aerobic glycolysis and in the TCA cycle, contributing equally to fatty acid and nucleic acid synthesis as required by cell demands (22, 23). However, our data show that metabolism of fructose and glucose by cancer cells is importantly different in ways that do not simply involve fructose-glucose isomerization. Indeed, our data indicate that the contribution of fructose to nucleic acid synthesis is considerably greater than glucose and that cancer cells preferentially use fructose via TKT-mediated metabolism to synthesize additional nucleic acids to facilitate increased proliferative capacity. Synthesis of nucleic acids and nucleotides is of utmost importance for proliferating tissues and especially cancers"
We've usually considered fructose and glucose as to be pretty much equivalent energy sources - when you feed cells, any cells, in culture you use a serum that is 5% glucose for example. Here, the cancer cells used fructose preferentially in make new nucleic acids, material needed for cells splitting and tissue growth. I wouldn't consider it significant without addressing a few questions. Equivalent studies in non-cancerous cells (hint, it probably has the same impact on the same pathways). Dietary studies on animal models haven't really shown an increase in fructose driven cancer rates.
As to using an actors hepatic response as an indicator of "oh-no" fruit is badism. Lol. You know what else causes increased hepatic enzymes? Mono, hepatitis, sleeping around, alcohol binges, various other viral infections, etc....
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »missblondi2u wrote: »This is definitely not true for me! I find potatoes very filling!
Besides, a roughly 6 oz bakes russet potato with the skin has 3.8g fiber, 926mg potassium, 4.3g protein, 27% of recommended Vitamin C, and very little fat. What's so empty about that?
Generally, a potato for example is filling because there's a lot of volume but it digests very quickly and leaves you hungry. Unless you put some butter, sour cream, etc., or eat it with some meat or something with a lower GI.
But at the end of the day if it works for you, keep it up.
Potatoes have fiber and "resistant starch" which makes them slower to digest. Add a bit of butter and/or sour cream and you slow the digestion further (as you have noted). Potatoes are actually a pretty good bang for your calorie buck as long as you don't fry them. The high temperatures of frying denature many frying oils (many of them are unhealthy to start with because of production methods) and make those potatoes somewhat unhealthy.
http://www.health.harvard.edu/healthy-eating/glycemic_index_and_glycemic_load_for_100_foods
Here's a link to a Harvard Medical site listing out the GI for 100+ foods. Baked potato has the highest GI of any vegetable BY FAR and one of the highest of any of the foods on the list.
Lucozade®, original (sparkling glucose drink) is a sports drink (I've never heard of) and it's even lower than the potato. GI translates into how close the food is to being broken down sugar and relates to the insulin repose your body produces. In general, you only want high GI when you're working out and need the energy immediately.
It's great you all are getting full from baked potato but my point is they produce a high insulin response and digest very quickly.
Not really. Unless it is all you are eating and unless you are eating them piping hot. Simple GI scores can basically be ignored by a healthy eater counting calories if no issues with regards to satiety exist.
Potatoes (actual, real world, real person) GI and GLs depend on total meal, with or without skin, cooling period, intestinal motility, prior meals, etc... It's basically been found that, other than in the lab, GI can be ignored in he healthy dieter - in fact, post meal glycemic overshoot isn't that likely with potatoes or if you exercise regularly.
Additionally, it's rather silly, in real-world terms, to consider the GI of a baked potato in a vacuum. They're usually consumed with some sort of fat (sour cream/butter on the potato, and other food items as a part of the meal), which modulates the GI by slowing the speed of gastic emptying. Not many people eat a baked potato whole like a fruit, with no toppings or other accompanying dishes.
This same phenomenon also makes it largely an academic exercise to discuss the GI of simple sugars. Not many people sit down at a table and shovel spoonfuls of pure sugar down their throat as a meal, or open a bottle of high-fructose corn syrup and guzzle it all by itself. Most sweet treats (cakes, cookies, candy bars, ice cream, etc.) also have significant fat content.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »missblondi2u wrote: »This is definitely not true for me! I find potatoes very filling!
Besides, a roughly 6 oz bakes russet potato with the skin has 3.8g fiber, 926mg potassium, 4.3g protein, 27% of recommended Vitamin C, and very little fat. What's so empty about that?
Generally, a potato for example is filling because there's a lot of volume but it digests very quickly and leaves you hungry. Unless you put some butter, sour cream, etc., or eat it with some meat or something with a lower GI.
But at the end of the day if it works for you, keep it up.
Potatoes have fiber and "resistant starch" which makes them slower to digest. Add a bit of butter and/or sour cream and you slow the digestion further (as you have noted). Potatoes are actually a pretty good bang for your calorie buck as long as you don't fry them. The high temperatures of frying denature many frying oils (many of them are unhealthy to start with because of production methods) and make those potatoes somewhat unhealthy.
http://www.health.harvard.edu/healthy-eating/glycemic_index_and_glycemic_load_for_100_foods
Here's a link to a Harvard Medical site listing out the GI for 100+ foods. Baked potato has the highest GI of any vegetable BY FAR and one of the highest of any of the foods on the list.
Lucozade®, original (sparkling glucose drink) is a sports drink (I've never heard of) and it's even lower than the potato. GI translates into how close the food is to being broken down sugar and relates to the insulin repose your body produces. In general, you only want high GI when you're working out and need the energy immediately.
It's great you all are getting full from baked potato but my point is they produce a high insulin response and digest very quickly.
Not really. Unless it is all you are eating and unless you are eating them piping hot. Simple GI scores can basically be ignored by a healthy eater counting calories if no issues with regards to satiety exist.
Potatoes (actual, real world, real person) GI and GLs depend on total meal, with or without skin, cooling period, intestinal motility, prior meals, etc... It's basically been found that, other than in the lab, GI can be ignored in he healthy dieter - in fact, post meal glycemic overshoot isn't that likely with potatoes or if you exercise regularly.
Additionally, it's rather silly, in real-world terms, to consider the GI of a baked potato in a vacuum. They're usually consumed with some sort of fat (sour cream/butter on the potato, and other food items as a part of the meal), which modulates the GI by slowing the speed of gastic emptying. Not many people eat a baked potato whole like a fruit, with no toppings or other accompanying dishes.
This same phenomenon also makes it largely an academic exercise to discuss the GI of simple sugars. Not many people sit down at a table and shovel spoonfuls of pure sugar down their throat as a meal, or open a bottle of high-fructose corn syrup and guzzle it all by itself. Most sweet treats (cakes, cookies, candy bars, ice cream, etc.) also have significant fat content.
That's what I meant by "total meal", thanks for making it clearer.0 -
This was posted in the NY Times wellness blog this week. According to Dr. Ludwig, weight loss/gain is not about CICO, but the real causes for obesity is our increasing reliance on processed carbs. Any thoughts? http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/01/07/rethinking-weight-loss-and-the-reasons-were-always-hungry/?ref=health&_r=0
It's the carbohydrate-insulin hypothesis of obesity, that is at least 20 year old. Nothing really new (apart from the specific diet book).
0 -
ChrisManch wrote: »I think what you eat does influence how much you eat. If you want to lose weight you need to eat less or expend more energy, this is true, but there are powerful psychological factors behind eating.
Saying "eat less, exercise more and you'll lose weight" is like saying "don't buy cigarettes and don't accept them from other people and you'll give up smoking". Certain foods reduce cravings for food, and others increase them. Of course if you have sufficient willpower you can just stop, eating or smoking, but not everyone can do that. Changing what you eat can influence how much you eat. You still need to eat less and/or exercise more.
Also I notice the good doctor has a book to sell.
^^^This
0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »No--but then there is the problem of the link between high fructose consumption and pancreatic cancer. Steve Jobs was a fruitarian for many years--apples were his favorite fruit. He even named his company after them. :-) Researchers have already warned about the connection between high fructose consumption and pancreatic cancer.Not sure the link or the research but I do know that the vast majority of those who ger pancreatic cancer are not fruitarian. Fruitarians are pretty rare and I know several people who had pancreatic cancer and it usually doesn't take long for them to die once it's diagnosed.
Please post a link to what you mention since I would be interested in seeing the research you mentioned.
Also, do you mean consumption of regular fructose in high qualities of consumption of higg fructose corn syrup? I could see the latter being an issue before the former.
http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/70/15/6368.long
There would obviously be some protective effects from fruit-eating over eating nutrient-poor food. As an example, strawberries contain a polyphenol called ellagic acid which inhibits angiogenesis. As such, it would fight metastasis. There is also the fact that not all of the fructose in fruit would be available for absorption since there would probably be a portion that remained encased in fiber (and end up in the toilet). As sucrose is 50% fructose, and would be unlikely to provide these mitigating circumstances, it might, in fact, be more damaging. High fructose corn syrup, as you have noted, is probably even worse. But someone eating pound after pound of fruit every day, would be likely to confront some of the same issues. Interestingly, the actor Ashton Kutcher, who played Jobs in one of the two biopics about him (it was not as well received as the Michael Fassbender version), was interested in getting into character for the role. He decided to adopt the fruitarian diet that Jobs followed, as I said, for many years. Here's a U.S. News and World Report on Kutcher's experience: http://health.usnews.com/health-news/articles/2013/02/07/ashton-kutchers-fruitarian-diet-what-went-wrong
Thanks I'll take a longer look later but it seems that it promotes growth but does not necessarily cause the cancer cells. Also my quick read seems to indicate they are only concerned about refined rather than natural state. This might mean is only refined fructose that can be absorbed in high enough quantities to be an issue or perhaps most people wouldn't eat enough fruit.
That research concludes that these specific cancer cells can metabolise fructose. That's not at all new - what is of interest is this:
"Conventionally, fructose and glucose have been considered as interchangeable monosaccharides that are both metabolized equivalently in aerobic glycolysis and in the TCA cycle, contributing equally to fatty acid and nucleic acid synthesis as required by cell demands (22, 23). However, our data show that metabolism of fructose and glucose by cancer cells is importantly different in ways that do not simply involve fructose-glucose isomerization. Indeed, our data indicate that the contribution of fructose to nucleic acid synthesis is considerably greater than glucose and that cancer cells preferentially use fructose via TKT-mediated metabolism to synthesize additional nucleic acids to facilitate increased proliferative capacity. Synthesis of nucleic acids and nucleotides is of utmost importance for proliferating tissues and especially cancers"
We've usually considered fructose and glucose as to be pretty much equivalent energy sources - when you feed cells, any cells, in culture you use a serum that is 5% glucose for example. Here, the cancer cells used fructose preferentially in make new nucleic acids, material needed for cells splitting and tissue growth. I wouldn't consider it significant without addressing a few questions. Equivalent studies in non-cancerous cells (hint, it probably has the same impact on the same pathways). Dietary studies on animal models haven't really shown an increase in fructose driven cancer rates.
As to using an actors hepatic response as an indicator of "oh-no" fruit is badism. Lol. You know what else causes increased hepatic enzymes? Mono, hepatitis, sleeping around, alcohol binges, various other viral infections, etc....
Very true, after further reading I think there might be a concern of how it could affect chemo therapies. Most of this research just confirms that there is an alternate pathway that needs to be considered and there was no attempt, that I saw, at quantifying an increased growth rate, which may not even exist in untreated cancers. It's interesting preliminary work but I'm not sure what the real effects are. On a side note it also know that IGF-1 has a large affinity for cancer cells, as it does for pretty much every cell in the body, which is why you probably shouldn't take IGF-1 injections.
As for actors I tend to ignore them whenever possible especially one like Ashton; I mean really, the Punked guy?0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions