Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Sugar, The Bitter Truth
Replies
-
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Is this a good place to plug the book Diet Cults, by Matt Fitzgerald?
Or how about a detailed discussion/analysis of the Hall Study, which scientifically proved that the carbohydrate-insulin model of obesity is completely false?: http://shreddedbyscience.com/ketogenic-diets-actually-work-study-review/10 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Is this a good place to plug the book Diet Cults, by Matt Fitzgerald?
Or how about a detailed discussion/analysis of the Hall Study, which scientifically proved that the carbohydrate-insulin model of obesity is completely false?: http://shreddedbyscience.com/ketogenic-diets-actually-work-study-review/
But but, Inuits and poorly interpreted archeological records, and somethingsomething diabeetus.11 -
RuNaRoUnDaFiEld wrote: »Marigolds333 wrote: »
https://youtu.be/dBnniua6-oM
Sugar, The Bitter Truth.. This is about an hour long , but VERY worth watching. Very informative.
http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/
A link for you to read OP.
or something more authorative and up to date:
http://sugarscience.ucsf.edu/4 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »RuNaRoUnDaFiEld wrote: »Marigolds333 wrote: »https://youtu.be/dBnniua6-oM
Sugar, The Bitter Truth.. This is about an hour long , but VERY worth watching. Very informative.
http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/
A link for you to read OP.
or something more authorative and up to date:
http://sugarscience.ucsf.edu/
That is just the UK guidelines on getting manufactures to reduce the sugar content by 20%.4 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »Marigolds333 wrote: »https://youtu.be/dBnniua6-oM
Sugar, The Bitter Truth.. This is about an hour long , but VERY worth watching. Very informative.
@Marigolds333 thanks for sharing that the type of calories consumed can make a difference in weight loss/gain.
You still don't grasp that a calorie is a unit of energy - they are uniform, that's how units of measurement work!
If you mean food, say food. If you mean nutrition, say nutrition.14 -
I've watched it before. Pretty much *kitten*.3
-
CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »Tazzie0208 wrote: »Sugar is not to be omitted from your diet. Your brain needs sugar. We function with the help of sugar. What needs to be done is as we all know, follow a balanced diet. Everything in moderation. Be mindful. That is all.
No your body doesn't need sugar. It doesn't need carbs at all, for that matter (and a few people manage to function just fine with a diet containing virtually no carbs) (not me!). the body can make everything it needs from fats and proteins.
so then how does one get the nutrients they need that fruits and veggies provide? those things are carbs(sugar)
I think they mean that dietary sugar or carbs are not needed, which is true.
... I think my carb total for this month during an animal products challenge is about 30g. Carbs definitely haven't been needed.
they may not be needed to function, but if you cut out fruits and veggies would you not be denying your body of certain nutrients only those things can provide? how is the body going to make certain nutrients from fats and protein if the food doesnt contain it?
All nutrients are available in animal products. Some are actually more bio available in that form.
Fibre is about the only thing that is missing but it is really only a benefit when digesting plant matter. It is not needed for a animal based diet.
3 -
"Sugar: The complete *kitten*" is a lot more accurate.3
-
4 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »Marigolds333 wrote: »https://youtu.be/dBnniua6-oM
Sugar, The Bitter Truth.. This is about an hour long , but VERY worth watching. Very informative.
@Marigolds333 thanks for sharing that the type of calories consumed can make a difference in weight loss/gain.
Even though it's completely untrue and has been scientifically disproven?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316911061_A_Calorie_is_Still_a_Calorie_According_to_Rigorous_New_Evidence
Conclusion Outpatient studies involving nutrients commonly involve insurmountable methodological and/or practical limitations. Even in the two well-designed studies discussed, future replication in larger randomized controlled trials is needed. Nonetheless, these metabolic studies not only provide their own important data, but pointedly add to the already considerable data base[13]. In particular, the carbohydrate–insulin hypothesis predicts a low-CHO diet, as compared with a isocaloric high-fat diet, will lower plasma insulin, cause a release of sequestered fat from adipose tissue, which will then be oxidized and lead to weight loss. These two rigorous studies, which may serve as a model for larger studies, found the opposite. The greater significance is that data which form the basis for public health policy must be of the highest caliber, using objective, repeatable, meticulous design. In weighing merits of hypotheses, Carl Sagan advised “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”
A Calorie is Still a Calorie, According to Rigorous New Evidence (PDF Download Available). Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316911061_A_Calorie_is_Still_a_Calorie_According_to_Rigorous_New_Evidence [accessed Jun 3, 2017].
Do you have any research that is germane to the OP?2 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »Marigolds333 wrote: »https://youtu.be/dBnniua6-oM
Sugar, The Bitter Truth.. This is about an hour long , but VERY worth watching. Very informative.
@Marigolds333 thanks for sharing that the type of calories consumed can make a difference in weight loss/gain.
You still don't grasp that a calorie is a unit of energy - they are uniform, that's how units of measurement work!
If you mean food, say food. If you mean nutrition, say nutrition.
Watch the OP video and you will see he is counting calories so the science is apples to apples.0 -
In the quantities with which some people eat/drink sugar, I would say that fructose is toxic. Alan Aragon agrees that drinking a half dozen cans of soda a day is a toxic amount of sugar. I did a quick search on the Internet and can see that some people do indeed drink that much a day.4
-
CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »Tazzie0208 wrote: »Sugar is not to be omitted from your diet. Your brain needs sugar. We function with the help of sugar. What needs to be done is as we all know, follow a balanced diet. Everything in moderation. Be mindful. That is all.
No your body doesn't need sugar. It doesn't need carbs at all, for that matter (and a few people manage to function just fine with a diet containing virtually no carbs) (not me!). the body can make everything it needs from fats and proteins.
so then how does one get the nutrients they need that fruits and veggies provide? those things are carbs(sugar)
I think they mean that dietary sugar or carbs are not needed, which is true.
... I think my carb total for this month during an animal products challenge is about 30g. Carbs definitely haven't been needed.
they may not be needed to function, but if you cut out fruits and veggies would you not be denying your body of certain nutrients only those things can provide? how is the body going to make certain nutrients from fats and protein if the food doesnt contain it?
All nutrients are available in animal products. Some are actually more bio available in that form.
Fibre is about the only thing that is missing but it is really only a benefit when digesting plant matter. It is not needed for a animal based diet.
You have to eat offal to get the full spectrum though don't you?0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »In the quantities with which some people eat/drink sugar, I would say that fructose is toxic. Alan Aragon agrees that drinking a half dozen cans of soda a day is a toxic amount of sugar. I did a quick search on the Internet and can see that some people do indeed drink that much a day.
In other words, back to "some people might eat in this extreme and obviously inadvisable way, therefore foods that are perfectly fine in reasonable amounts should be assumed to be toxic and people in general should be alarmist about them." Hmm.14 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »In the quantities with which some people eat/drink sugar, I would say that fructose is toxic. Alan Aragon agrees that drinking a half dozen cans of soda a day is a toxic amount of sugar. I did a quick search on the Internet and can see that some people do indeed drink that much a day.
Caloric deficit causes weight loss. But I did a quick search on the internet and can see that some people (e.g., anorexics) do indeed practice ridiculous and extreme caloric deficits on a daily basis. Many have even died from it.
So from that, should we then conclude that a caloric deficit is dangerous/toxic and nobody should ever have a caloric deficit of any amount? Or would it be more reasonable to conclude that, like most things, moderation and use of common sense is the best possible practice?10 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »In the quantities with which some people eat/drink sugar, I would say that fructose is toxic. Alan Aragon agrees that drinking a half dozen cans of soda a day is a toxic amount of sugar. I did a quick search on the Internet and can see that some people do indeed drink that much a day.
No, he didn't say it is "toxic", he says:
"In the single human study I’m aware of that linked fructose to a greater next-day appetite in a subset of the subjects, 30% of total daily energy intake was in the form of free fructose [12]. This amounts to 135 grams, which is the equivalent of 6-7 nondiet soft drinks. Is it really that groundbreaking to think that polishing off a half-dozen soft drinks per day is not a good idea? Demonizing fructose without mentioning the dose-dependent nature of its effects is intellectually dishonest. Like anything else, fructose consumed in gross chronic excess can lead to problems, while moderate amounts are neutral, and in some cases beneficial."
Quoted from this link suggested upthread: http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/
I'm sure there are people out there who drink a gallon of soda a day, but it's certainly not typical. And just because something in large quantities is bad for you, doesn't mean it is a toxic substance, which was kind of Aragon's point. And he doesn't say that consuming all that free fructose is bad because fructose is toxic. Just the fact that it would be 900 some odd calories added to your diet with no satiety makes it a likely contributor to weight gain - ie can lead to problems.14 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »In the quantities with which some people eat/drink sugar, I would say that fructose is toxic. Alan Aragon agrees that drinking a half dozen cans of soda a day is a toxic amount of sugar. I did a quick search on the Internet and can see that some people do indeed drink that much a day.
No, he didn't say it is "toxic", he says:
"In the single human study I’m aware of that linked fructose to a greater next-day appetite in a subset of the subjects, 30% of total daily energy intake was in the form of free fructose [12]. This amounts to 135 grams, which is the equivalent of 6-7 nondiet soft drinks. Is it really that groundbreaking to think that polishing off a half-dozen soft drinks per day is not a good idea? Demonizing fructose without mentioning the dose-dependent nature of its effects is intellectually dishonest. Like anything else, fructose consumed in gross chronic excess can lead to problems, while moderate amounts are neutral, and in some cases beneficial."
Quoted from this link suggested upthread: http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/
I'm sure there are people out there who drink a gallon of soda a day, but it's certainly not typical. And just because something in large quantities is bad for you, doesn't mean it is a toxic substance, which was kind of Aragon's point. And he doesn't say that consuming all that free fructose is bad because fructose is toxic. Just the fact that it would be 900 some odd calories added to your diet with no satiety makes it a likely contributor to weight gain - ie can lead to problems.
Excellent clarification. Cherry-picking research and misquoting/selectively quoting sources is a grievous error in research. It usually pays to thoroughly read and properly interpret what you're quoting/linking, as it often proves the exact opposite of the point one is trying to make.8 -
I agree he's not saying fructose itself is toxic, but I gather what he said to mean 135g of fructose is what he considers to be "gross chronic excess".ForecasterJason wrote: »In the quantities with which some people eat/drink sugar, I would say that fructose is toxic. Alan Aragon agrees that drinking a half dozen cans of soda a day is a toxic amount of sugar. I did a quick search on the Internet and can see that some people do indeed drink that much a day.
No, he didn't say it is "toxic", he says:
"In the single human study I’m aware of that linked fructose to a greater next-day appetite in a subset of the subjects, 30% of total daily energy intake was in the form of free fructose [12]. This amounts to 135 grams, which is the equivalent of 6-7 nondiet soft drinks. Is it really that groundbreaking to think that polishing off a half-dozen soft drinks per day is not a good idea? Demonizing fructose without mentioning the dose-dependent nature of its effects is intellectually dishonest. Like anything else, fructose consumed in gross chronic excess can lead to problems, while moderate amounts are neutral, and in some cases beneficial."
Quoted from this link suggested upthread: http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/
I'm sure there are people out there who drink a gallon of soda a day, but it's certainly not typical. And just because something in large quantities is bad for you, doesn't mean it is a toxic substance, which was kind of Aragon's point. And he doesn't say that consuming all that free fructose is bad because fructose is toxic. Just the fact that it would be 900 some odd calories added to your diet with no satiety makes it a likely contributor to weight gain - ie can lead to problems.
1 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
I agree he's not saying fructose itself is toxic, but I gather what he said to mean 135g of fructose is what he considers to be "gross chronic excess".ForecasterJason wrote: »In the quantities with which some people eat/drink sugar, I would say that fructose is toxic. Alan Aragon agrees that drinking a half dozen cans of soda a day is a toxic amount of sugar. I did a quick search on the Internet and can see that some people do indeed drink that much a day.
No, he didn't say it is "toxic", he says:
"In the single human study I’m aware of that linked fructose to a greater next-day appetite in a subset of the subjects, 30% of total daily energy intake was in the form of free fructose [12]. This amounts to 135 grams, which is the equivalent of 6-7 nondiet soft drinks. Is it really that groundbreaking to think that polishing off a half-dozen soft drinks per day is not a good idea? Demonizing fructose without mentioning the dose-dependent nature of its effects is intellectually dishonest. Like anything else, fructose consumed in gross chronic excess can lead to problems, while moderate amounts are neutral, and in some cases beneficial."
Quoted from this link suggested upthread: http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/
I'm sure there are people out there who drink a gallon of soda a day, but it's certainly not typical. And just because something in large quantities is bad for you, doesn't mean it is a toxic substance, which was kind of Aragon's point. And he doesn't say that consuming all that free fructose is bad because fructose is toxic. Just the fact that it would be 900 some odd calories added to your diet with no satiety makes it a likely contributor to weight gain - ie can lead to problems.
I am pretty sure that a minimal of 1200 calories of soda would be excess for anyone..6 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
I agree he's not saying fructose itself is toxic, but I gather what he said to mean 135g of fructose is what he considers to be "gross chronic excess".ForecasterJason wrote: »In the quantities with which some people eat/drink sugar, I would say that fructose is toxic. Alan Aragon agrees that drinking a half dozen cans of soda a day is a toxic amount of sugar. I did a quick search on the Internet and can see that some people do indeed drink that much a day.
No, he didn't say it is "toxic", he says:
"In the single human study I’m aware of that linked fructose to a greater next-day appetite in a subset of the subjects, 30% of total daily energy intake was in the form of free fructose [12]. This amounts to 135 grams, which is the equivalent of 6-7 nondiet soft drinks. Is it really that groundbreaking to think that polishing off a half-dozen soft drinks per day is not a good idea? Demonizing fructose without mentioning the dose-dependent nature of its effects is intellectually dishonest. Like anything else, fructose consumed in gross chronic excess can lead to problems, while moderate amounts are neutral, and in some cases beneficial."
Quoted from this link suggested upthread: http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/
I'm sure there are people out there who drink a gallon of soda a day, but it's certainly not typical. And just because something in large quantities is bad for you, doesn't mean it is a toxic substance, which was kind of Aragon's point. And he doesn't say that consuming all that free fructose is bad because fructose is toxic. Just the fact that it would be 900 some odd calories added to your diet with no satiety makes it a likely contributor to weight gain - ie can lead to problems.
I am pretty sure that a minimal of 1200 calories of soda would be excess for anyone..
Especially when you consider what the average person consuming that amount of soda per day is likely eating in addition.1 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »Marigolds333 wrote: »https://youtu.be/dBnniua6-oM
Sugar, The Bitter Truth.. This is about an hour long , but VERY worth watching. Very informative.
@Marigolds333 thanks for sharing that the type of calories consumed can make a difference in weight loss/gain.
You still don't grasp that a calorie is a unit of energy - they are uniform, that's how units of measurement work!
If you mean food, say food. If you mean nutrition, say nutrition.
Watch the OP video and you will see he is counting calories so the science is apples to apples.
So you still think there are different types of calories then?
And different types of joules?
Different types of watts?7 -
RuNaRoUnDaFiEld wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »Tazzie0208 wrote: »Sugar is not to be omitted from your diet. Your brain needs sugar. We function with the help of sugar. What needs to be done is as we all know, follow a balanced diet. Everything in moderation. Be mindful. That is all.
No your body doesn't need sugar. It doesn't need carbs at all, for that matter (and a few people manage to function just fine with a diet containing virtually no carbs) (not me!). the body can make everything it needs from fats and proteins.
so then how does one get the nutrients they need that fruits and veggies provide? those things are carbs(sugar)
I think they mean that dietary sugar or carbs are not needed, which is true.
... I think my carb total for this month during an animal products challenge is about 30g. Carbs definitely haven't been needed.
they may not be needed to function, but if you cut out fruits and veggies would you not be denying your body of certain nutrients only those things can provide? how is the body going to make certain nutrients from fats and protein if the food doesnt contain it?
All nutrients are available in animal products. Some are actually more bio available in that form.
Fibre is about the only thing that is missing but it is really only a benefit when digesting plant matter. It is not needed for a animal based diet.
You have to eat offal to get the full spectrum though don't you?
No, but that does make it much easier. Sort of like how spinach is a better source of calcium than carrots but you don't need to eat spinach to get calcium (if a vegetarian).
Not overcooking meat helps too.2 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »Marigolds333 wrote: »https://youtu.be/dBnniua6-oM
Sugar, The Bitter Truth.. This is about an hour long , but VERY worth watching. Very informative.
@Marigolds333 thanks for sharing that the type of calories consumed can make a difference in weight loss/gain.
Even though it's completely untrue and has been scientifically disproven?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316911061_A_Calorie_is_Still_a_Calorie_According_to_Rigorous_New_Evidence
Conclusion Outpatient studies involving nutrients commonly involve insurmountable methodological and/or practical limitations. Even in the two well-designed studies discussed, future replication in larger randomized controlled trials is needed. Nonetheless, these metabolic studies not only provide their own important data, but pointedly add to the already considerable data base[13]. In particular, the carbohydrate–insulin hypothesis predicts a low-CHO diet, as compared with a isocaloric high-fat diet, will lower plasma insulin, cause a release of sequestered fat from adipose tissue, which will then be oxidized and lead to weight loss. These two rigorous studies, which may serve as a model for larger studies, found the opposite. The greater significance is that data which form the basis for public health policy must be of the highest caliber, using objective, repeatable, meticulous design. In weighing merits of hypotheses, Carl Sagan advised “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”
A Calorie is Still a Calorie, According to Rigorous New Evidence (PDF Download Available). Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316911061_A_Calorie_is_Still_a_Calorie_According_to_Rigorous_New_Evidence [accessed Jun 3, 2017].
Do you have any research that is germane to the OP?
I dont believe any of Lustigs studies have been replicated. But kevin halls have. In fact, he wasnt even the first to do and isocaloric, euprotein studies. Aizona state did it in 2006 but without the metabolic ward; ironically in a 6 month follow up no difference in weight loss or metabolic markers.
The only studies that actually show vlc or keto as superior are ones where protein isnt held comstant and generally increased for only the low carb group. At that point, it really makes them a high protein vs low protein comparison and higher protein always wins. It will win across the board against any other diet when calories are constant. If you want 21 examples google authority nutritions low carb is better. All 21 studies have protein at higher levels than the other group.5 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »Marigolds333 wrote: »https://youtu.be/dBnniua6-oM
Sugar, The Bitter Truth.. This is about an hour long , but VERY worth watching. Very informative.
@Marigolds333 thanks for sharing that the type of calories consumed can make a difference in weight loss/gain.
Even though it's completely untrue and has been scientifically disproven?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316911061_A_Calorie_is_Still_a_Calorie_According_to_Rigorous_New_Evidence
Conclusion Outpatient studies involving nutrients commonly involve insurmountable methodological and/or practical limitations. Even in the two well-designed studies discussed, future replication in larger randomized controlled trials is needed. Nonetheless, these metabolic studies not only provide their own important data, but pointedly add to the already considerable data base[13]. In particular, the carbohydrate–insulin hypothesis predicts a low-CHO diet, as compared with a isocaloric high-fat diet, will lower plasma insulin, cause a release of sequestered fat from adipose tissue, which will then be oxidized and lead to weight loss. These two rigorous studies, which may serve as a model for larger studies, found the opposite. The greater significance is that data which form the basis for public health policy must be of the highest caliber, using objective, repeatable, meticulous design. In weighing merits of hypotheses, Carl Sagan advised “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”
A Calorie is Still a Calorie, According to Rigorous New Evidence (PDF Download Available). Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316911061_A_Calorie_is_Still_a_Calorie_According_to_Rigorous_New_Evidence [accessed Jun 3, 2017].
Do you have any research that is germane to the OP?
I dont believe any of Lustigs studies have been replicated. But kevin halls have. In fact, he wasnt even the first to do and isocaloric, euprotein studies. Aizona state did it in 2006 but without the metabolic ward; ironically in a 6 month follow up no difference in weight loss or metabolic markers.
The only studies that actually show vlc or keto as superior are ones where protein isnt held comstant and generally increased for only the low carb group. At that point, it really makes them a high protein vs low protein comparison and higher protein always wins. It will win across the board against any other diet when calories are constant. If you want 21 examples google authority nutritions low carb is better. All 21 studies have protein at higher levels than the other group.
In this study, isocaloric diets were used with protein held equal. It revealed no increase in fat loss for a ketogenic diet: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/27385608/
In this study, isocaloric diets were used and protein was held equal. It revealed that both keto and non-keto diets caused weight loss, but the keto diet adversely affected cortisol levels: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17785367
This study, using several different diets, found that the protein content of the diet was relevant to weight loss/maintenance, but neither the fat nor carbohydrate contents were: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/22935440/
In this study, both calories and protein levels appear to have been held roughly equal. The study found that there was no metabolic advantage to ketogenic diets, and also found an increased inflammatory risk in the ketogenic diet. The conclusion was that "KLC and NLC diets were equally effective in reducing body weight and insulin resistance, but the KLC diet was associated with several adverse metabolic and emotional effects. The use of ketogenic diets for weight loss is not warranted.": https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/16685046/4 -
Marigolds333 wrote: »https://youtu.be/dBnniua6-oM
Sugar, The Bitter Truth.. This is about an hour long , but VERY worth watching. Very informative.
@Marigolds333 below is some research that drives home the validity of video that you posted by addressing that High Fructose can lead to IR which we know makes weight loss much harder.
https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27025195
Pancreatology. 2016 May-Jun;16(3):347-52. doi: 10.1016/j.pan.2016.03.001. Epub 2016 Mar 10.
Alpha lipoic acid attenuates high-fructose-induced pancreatic toxicity.
Topsakal S1, Ozmen O2, Cankara FN3, Yesilot S4, Bayram D5, Genç Özdamar N6, Kayan S6.
Author information
Abstract
OBJECTIVES:
Chronic consumption of high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) causes several problems such as insulin resistance. The goal of the study was to investigate pancreatic damage induced by chronic HFCS consumption and the protective effects of alpha lipoic acid (ALA) on pancreatic cells.
METHODS:
Wistar Albino, 4-month-old, female rats weighing 250-300 g were randomly distributed into three groups, each containing eight rats. The study included an HFCS group, an HFCS + ALA-administered group and a control group (CON). The prepared 30% solution of HFCS (F30) (24% fructose, 28% dextrose) was added to the drinking water for 10 weeks. ALA treatment was begun 4 weeks after the first HFCS administration (100 mg/kg/oral, last 6 weeks). Rats were anaesthetised and euthanised by cervical dislocation 24 h after the last ALA administration. Blood samples for biochemical tests (amylase, lipase, malondialdehyde (MDA) and catalase (CAT)) and tissue samples for histopathological and immunohistochemical examinations (caspase-3, insulin and glucagon) were collected.
RESULTS:
Comparing the control and HFCS groups, serum glucose (150.92 ± 39.77 and 236.50 ± 18.28, respectively, p < 0.05), amylase (2165.00 ± 150.76 and 3027.66 ± 729.19, respectively, p < 0.01), lipase (5.58 ± 2.22 and 11.51 ± 2.74, respectively, p < 0.01) and pancreatic tissue MDA (0.0167 ± 0.004 and 0.0193 ± 0.006, respectively, p < 0.05) levels were increased, whereas tissue CAT (0.0924 ± 0.029 and 0.0359 ± 0.023, respectively, p < 0.05) activity decreased in the HFCS group significantly. Histopathological examination revealed degenerative and necrotic changes in Langerhans islet cells and slight inflammatory cell infiltration in pancreatic tissue in the HFCS group. Immunohistochemically there was a significant decrease in insulin (2.85 ± 0.37 and 0.87 ± 0.64, respectively, p < 0.001) and glucagon (2.71 ± 0.48 and 1.00 ± 0.75, respectively, p < 0.001) secreting cell scores, whereas a greater increase in caspase-3 (0.14 ± 0.37 and 1.00 ± 0.75, respectively, p < 0.05) expression was seen in this group compared with the controls. In the ALA-treated group, all of these pathologic conditions were improved.
CONCLUSIONS:
This study indicated HFCS induced pancreatic lesions, but ALA had ameliorative effects.
Copyright © 2016 IAP and EPC. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
KEYWORDS:
Alpha lipoic acid; High-fructose corn syrup; Immunohistochemistry; Oxidative stress; Pancreas; Pathology
PMID: 27025195 DOI: 10.1016/j.pan.2016.03.001
0 -
Giving a rat chronic doses of hfcs proves nothing for us humans.7
-
RuNaRoUnDaFiEld wrote: »Giving a rat chronic doses of hfcs proves nothing for us humans.
Yes but it does if one is interested in medical science and has any science background. The "proof" from this rat study is grounds to apply for an application to do a similar study in humans.
The bitter truth about sugar has been known in the medical community for a long time. When I was a carb addict I felt the same way as you may feel today. When I was facing a premature and painful death three years ago I started looking for root causes of my failing health. I learned how harmful sugar can be to humans in the dosages that I was consuming. Cutting out all added sugar has in part reversed my obesity and is moving my lab test results back towards more healthy ones.0 -
RuNaRoUnDaFiEld wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »Tazzie0208 wrote: »Sugar is not to be omitted from your diet. Your brain needs sugar. We function with the help of sugar. What needs to be done is as we all know, follow a balanced diet. Everything in moderation. Be mindful. That is all.
No your body doesn't need sugar. It doesn't need carbs at all, for that matter (and a few people manage to function just fine with a diet containing virtually no carbs) (not me!). the body can make everything it needs from fats and proteins.
so then how does one get the nutrients they need that fruits and veggies provide? those things are carbs(sugar)
I think they mean that dietary sugar or carbs are not needed, which is true.
... I think my carb total for this month during an animal products challenge is about 30g. Carbs definitely haven't been needed.
they may not be needed to function, but if you cut out fruits and veggies would you not be denying your body of certain nutrients only those things can provide? how is the body going to make certain nutrients from fats and protein if the food doesnt contain it?
All nutrients are available in animal products. Some are actually more bio available in that form.
Fibre is about the only thing that is missing but it is really only a benefit when digesting plant matter. It is not needed for a animal based diet.
You have to eat offal to get the full spectrum though don't you?
Yep. Raw meat and/or organs on the regular.2 -
RuNaRoUnDaFiEld wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »Tazzie0208 wrote: »Sugar is not to be omitted from your diet. Your brain needs sugar. We function with the help of sugar. What needs to be done is as we all know, follow a balanced diet. Everything in moderation. Be mindful. That is all.
No your body doesn't need sugar. It doesn't need carbs at all, for that matter (and a few people manage to function just fine with a diet containing virtually no carbs) (not me!). the body can make everything it needs from fats and proteins.
so then how does one get the nutrients they need that fruits and veggies provide? those things are carbs(sugar)
I think they mean that dietary sugar or carbs are not needed, which is true.
... I think my carb total for this month during an animal products challenge is about 30g. Carbs definitely haven't been needed.
they may not be needed to function, but if you cut out fruits and veggies would you not be denying your body of certain nutrients only those things can provide? how is the body going to make certain nutrients from fats and protein if the food doesnt contain it?
All nutrients are available in animal products. Some are actually more bio available in that form.
Fibre is about the only thing that is missing but it is really only a benefit when digesting plant matter. It is not needed for a animal based diet.
You have to eat offal to get the full spectrum though don't you?
No, but that does make it much easier. Sort of like how spinach is a better source of calcium than carrots but you don't need to eat spinach to get calcium (if a vegetarian).
Not overcooking meat helps too.
It's funny you should mention calcium.
Meat is almost devoid of calcium.
If you include eggs and dairy, you will need to drink about a liter of milk a day for your calcium. Fine, that's possible.
You'll still be lacking Vitamin C and Manganese first and foremost and probably some other things I didn't see at first glance.5 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »RuNaRoUnDaFiEld wrote: »Giving a rat chronic doses of hfcs proves nothing for us humans.
Yes but it does if one is interested in medical science and has any science background. The "proof" from this rat study is grounds to apply for an application to do a similar study in humans.
The bitter truth about sugar has been known in the medical community for a long time. When I was a carb addict I felt the same way as you may feel today. When I was facing a premature and painful death three years ago I started looking for root causes of my failing health. I learned how harmful sugar can be to humans in the dosages that I was consuming. Cutting out all added sugar has in part reversed my obesity and is moving my lab test results back towards more healthy ones.
I think you're refering to nutrition when talking about "type of calories". But in terms of energy balance, considering that the calories are just units equivalent to the amount of energy of foods, to gain/loss weight doesn't matter where they come, to be healthy it matters though.
You'll loss weight eating HFSC at a deficit of your energy expenditure. Obviously you'll have health problems with that diet but consuming it doesn't create any metabolic change.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions