 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsGeneral TopicsLow CarbWeightWatchers WeightAdviser.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Weight Loss Forum / Low Carb / July 2009Hot breaking news . . .(no, not him)
I'm not familiar with this blog. If you are, I'd like some feedback on its veracity. http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/ SUNDAY, JULY 12, 2009 Goodbye, fructose A carefully-conducted study by a collaborative research group at University of California-Berkeley has finally closed the lid on the fuss over fructose vs. glucose and its purported adverse effects. The study is published in its entirety here. Compared to glucose, fructose induced: 1) Four-fold greater intra-abdominal fat accumulation--3% increased intra-abdominal fat with glucose; 14.4% with fructose. (Intraabdominal fat is the variety that blocks insulin responses and causes diabetes and inflammation.) 2) 13.9% increase in LDL cholesterol but doubled Apoprotein B (an index of the number of LDL particles, similar to NMR LDL particle number). 3) 44.9% increase in small LDL, compared to 13.3% with glucose. 4) While glucose (curiously) reduced the net postprandial (after-eating) triglyceride response (area under the curve, AUC), fructose increased postprandial triglycerides 99.2%. The authors propose that fructose specifically increases liver VLDL production, the lipoprotein particle that yields abnormal after-eating particles, increased LDL, and provides building blocks to manufacture small LDL particles. The authors also persuasively propose that fructose metabolism, unlike glucose, is not inhibited (via feedback loop) by energy intake, **i.e., it's as if you are always starving**. Add to this the data that show that fructose increases uric acid (that causes gout and may act as a coronary risk factor), induces leptin resistance, causes metabolic syndrome (pre-diabetes), and (Hold on to your hats) >>**INCREASES APPETITE**<<, and it is clear that fructose is yet another common food additive that, along with wheat, is likely a big part of the reason Americans are fat and diabetic. Fructose is concentrated, of course, in high-fructose corn syrup, comprising anywhere from 42-90% of total weight. Fructose also composes 50% of sucrose (table sugar). Fructose also figures prominently in many fruits; among the worst culprits are raisins (30% fructose) and honey (41% fructose). Also, beware of low-fat or non-fat salad dressings (rich with high-fructose corn syrup), ketchup, beer, fruit drinks, fruit juices, all of which are rich sources of this exceptionally fattening, metabolism-bypassing, LDL cholesterol/small LDL/ApoB increasing compound. Ironically, this means that many low-fat foods meant to reduce cholesterol actually increase it when they contain fructose in any form. When you hear or say "fructose," run the other way, regardless of what the Corn Refiners Association says. ----- There you have it. HFCS makes you hungry. Boy, doesn't a big sausage pizza sound good? Yum, yum;O) We could even put on extra cheese. Oh, it's fat people's fault for drinking soda pop? It's not just soda pop anymore. http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/79/4/537 HFCS was introduced into the food supply just before 1970 and increased rapidly to constitute > 40% of the sweeteners used by 2000 (8). The increase in HFCS consumption just preceded the rapid increase in the prevalence of obesity that occurred between the National Center for Health Statistics survey in 19761980 and the next survey in 19881994 (35) (Figure 1). HFCS is used in soft drinks, and HFCS and >>**APPLE JUICE**<<, which has 65% fructose, are used as the principal sweeteners for FRUIT DRINKS. The increasing consumption of calorically sweetened soft drinks has been associated with a decrease in the intake of milk. ---- To review, the producers of junk food (high carbs/low nutrition) use fractionated GMO corn, and GMO soy (oil) in their products. There are massive questions as to the safety of GMO products but now we know that GMO HFCS (arguably, any HFCS, GMO or not) makes you hungry. No matter what diet you are on, the possibility of over eating is increased. Before you buy low-fat, or non-fat salad dressings, ketchup, fruit drinks, fruit juices, check to see if it has HFCS in it. I don't know what to tell you about beer. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDNYod1OpDQ&NR=1  Signature- Billy There are three kinds of men: The ones that learn by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence and find out for themselves. Will Rogers http://countercurrents.org/roberts020709.htm http://www.tomdispatch.com/p/zinn So we should be watching our inboxes for "fructose blocker" spam now? Maybe we should lobby for a fructose tax. > So we should be watching our inboxes for "fructose blocker" spam now? > > Maybe we should lobby for a fructose tax. Hell, I'd be happy with a progressive income tax. Don't forget the Republicans, they've been taxing my patience for decades. Signature- Billy There are three kinds of men: The ones that learn by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence and find out for themselves. Will Rogers http://countercurrents.org/roberts020709.htm http://www.tomdispatch.com/p/zinn In article <wildbilly-4268A6.15491313072009@c-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au>, > Hell, I'd be happy with a progressive income tax. > Don't forget the Republicans, they've been taxing my patience for > decades. Hence the new hit book, _Pride, Prejudice and Republicans_. > In article > <wildbilly-4268A6.15491313072009@c-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au>, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Hence the new hit book, _Pride, Prejudice and Republicans_. Too intellectual. Given the current crop of Republican dalliances, maybe a book of Republican pick up lines would be more in order. Signature- Billy There are three kinds of men: The ones that learn by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence and find out for themselves. Will Rogers http://countercurrents.org/roberts020709.htm http://www.tomdispatch.com/p/zinn > I'm not familiar with this blog. If you are, I'd like some feedback on > its veracity ... Since blogspot works with click-through ads posting blogspot links on newsgroups move towards spamming. Copying blogspot links in a reply moves farther towards spamming. It's fine to list where you got your content but you do need to know what the history is with blogspot to give you perspective on how long term newsgroup members react when they see blogspot links. And also to urge anyone responding to any post containing a blogspot URL to trim it in their response. > SUNDAY, JULY 12, 2009 > Goodbye, fructose [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > 3) 44.9% increase in small LDL, compared to 13.3% with glucose. Did it say if this was a gram for gram calorie for calorie comparison? Because disaccharide sugars are sweeter than glucose it takes less of them for the same sweetening effect. If this study compared equivalent sweetness effects then it's an enormous difference. If this study compared calorie for calorie then its results need to be adjusted to take into account the sweetening effect. It takes much more glucose than sucrose to acheive the same sweetening. HFCS is nearly as effective a sweetener as sucrose so it takes a bit more or it. If sweetening effect did not matter the approach would be to replace sucrose (mostly cane sourced, some beet sourced) with glucose (mostly corn sourced) not HFCS. The change would be calorie for calorie. But sweetening matters. Price also matters. HFCS is a lot cheaper than either cane or beet sourced sucrose sugar. Even if it's a little less effective as a sweetener more can be added for the same sweetening effect, for lower price, for slightly higher calories. Price matters greatly when producing large quantities. And as the popularity of Walmart shows even in the face of intense opposition by many, price matters greatly at retail. I think because HFCS is cheaper than sucrose, manufactures use so much of it in their products they drive the sweetness level much higher. Since humans instinctually crave sweetness, that drives the products down a road that triggers behavior patterns that look addictive. Companies want their customers addicted. > 4) While glucose (curiously) reduced the net postprandial (after-eating) > triglyceride response (area under the curve, AUC), fructose increased > postprandial triglycerides 99.2%. I offer a speculation - Primates evolved as fruit eaters. It takes roughly five million years for a population eating a steady diet to evolve to have that diet as its optimal food (it takes a lot of reading on evolution to conclude this so there would be many pages of references to show it). Humans have not been eating a steady diet for the last five million years so we have not evolved an optimal diet (the range of hunterer gatherer diets all work well and all work better then modern diets). Humans have spent the entire five million years no longer eating fruit as our majority diet. I speculate that we haven't seen enough evolutionary pressure to remove this part of the blood chemistry reaction to fruit. Let's say an animal's majority calorie source is fruit, almost all non-domesticated very tart fruit with only occasional very sweet fruit like what is now available from domestication. This diet is a low fat high carb medium glycemic load system. There's a need to synthesize fat for storage from any excess carbs and that equals increased VHDL. There's a need to withdraw fat from storage when there is not enough fruit at hand. A short lived fruit eater needs to breed long before it can get any ill effects from hardening arteries. Combine this with the fact that humans now have an extremely long life span compared to other primates and also a much lower intake of fructose compared o other primates. We end up with a reversal that if we aren't eating fruit at a subsistance level that leaves us endlessly hungry, then eating fructose ends up bad for us not good for us. I for one have no interest in being endlessly hungry - I tried low fat for 20 years and the result was gaining 50 pounds because of the extra hunger. > The authors propose that fructose specifically increases liver VLDL > production, the lipoprotein particle that yields abnormal after-eating > particles, increased LDL, and provides building blocks to manufacture > small LDL particles. The authors also persuasively propose that fructose > metabolism, unlike glucose, is not inhibited (via feedback loop) by > energy intake, **i.e., it's as if you are always starving**. If you're a primate living in trees and your choice is eating low nutrition leaves or high nutrition fruit, you'd better be hungry 24/7. Among our closest relatives, organutangs have the diet that sounds the most like that. > Also, beware of low-fat or non-fat salad dressings (rich with > high-fructose corn syrup), ketchup, beer, fruit drinks, fruit juices, This is why most low carb plans urge folks to eat full fat salad dressings. This is why one of the best low carb products to ever come out of the low carb fad was low carb ketchup. This is why juicing is bad even on a low fat diet - It drops the fiber from the food. As to beer, the good ones have fermented the sugars out. If you have seen bumper stickers that say "Life is too short for bad wine", I feel the same about bad beer. A Guiness and a Budweiser both have near 15 grams of carb and it's not a difficult choice when phrased in those terms. I am very glad for the popularity of micro breweries and brew pubs that produce beer that has low residual sugar. I take this to an extreme - I tend to have 1-2 beers per week and at that rate I want my small number of beers to be the very best. Give me one bottle of Belgian Chimay over a case and a half of Miller any time. > There you have it. HFCS makes you hungry. Boy, doesn't a big sausage > pizza sound good? Yum, yum;O) We could even put on extra cheese. There is a chain near me (Lou Malnattis in Chicago metro) that offers a crust made by pressing sausage to shape. Being wheat intolerant I need my pizza crust made like that or from soy or rice flour or whatever. Being a low carber I'll take a sausage or soy flour crust over a rice or corn flour crust almost every time. > HFCS was introduced into the food supply just before 1970 and increased > rapidly to constitute > 40% of the sweeteners used by 2000 (8). The > increase in HFCS consumption just preceded the rapid increase in the > prevalence of obesity that occurred between the National Center for > Health Statistics survey in 19761980 and the next survey in 19881994 > (35) (Figure 1). That time range also saw a portion of french fries go from a couple of ounces to a gigantic portion. That's increased starch and fat rather then increased HFCS and it contributes at least as much to the epidemic. The high glycemic load of high starch foods gets its own similar discussion. That time range also saw the size of burgers and their buns increase tremendously as well. The Big Mac was invented, then the Quarter Pounder, Whopper, Double Whopper, you name it. All with larger starchy buns as well as very high calories from fat and protein. Sometimes it's about individual ingredients and sometimes it's about just plain more of everything. > ... The increasing > consumption of calorically sweetened soft drinks has been associated > with a decrease in the intake of milk. Milk - What could have become cheese but got drunk by someone instead. ;^) I'm not lactose intolerant but I get that a focus on non-fat milk just adds yet another type of sugar as far too high a portion of people's intake. > Before you buy low-fat, or non-fat salad dressings, ketchup, fruit > drinks, fruit juices, check to see if it has HFCS in it. I don't know > what to tell you about beer. Beer - The real Michael Jackson was the world's foremost expert on beer when he was alive. He died a couple of years ago and lovers of gourmet beer care a lot more about him than the fake one in the news recently. Check amazon or any bookstore for "michael jackson beer" and you'll see many of his superior books on the topic. But also check out my approach to having a small amount of the finest beers and a large amount of cheap beers. In article <011c1ee3-c3ca-40be-b1c7-d9f6bf48b98d@z28g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>, > > I'm not familiar with this blog. If you are, I'd like some feedback on > > its veracity ... [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > anyone responding to any post containing a blogspot URL to trim > it in their response. I take your point, but I was asking about the blog and its veracity. Normally, one doesn't withhold information in an inquiry. > > SUNDAY, JULY 12, 2009 > > Goodbye, fructose [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Did it say if this was a gram for gram calorie for calorie comparison? You have seen as much of the article as I have. I can't imagine that a scientific inquiry into physiological response, would be bases on anything other than a gram to gram basis, otherwise it would become subjective. > Because disaccharide sugars are sweeter than glucose it takes less > of them for the same sweetening effect. If this study compared [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > is nearly as effective a sweetener as sucrose so it takes a bit more > or it. No mention was made of sucrose or any other disaccharide. The comparison was physiological response to glucose, and fructose, or did I miss something? > If sweetening effect did not matter the approach would be to replace > sucrose (mostly cane sourced, some beet sourced) with glucose [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > the products down a road that triggers behavior patterns that look > addictive. Companies want their customers addicted. Oh, you heard about Phillip Morris. > > 4) While glucose (curiously) reduced the net postprandial (after-eating) > > triglyceride response (area under the curve, AUC), fructose increased [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > hungry - I tried low fat for 20 years and the result was gaining 50 > pounds because of the extra hunger. It is odd though, that endlessly hungry, if you don't die from it, let's you live longer. It doesn't just seem longer, but actually longer in a months, years kind of sense. > > The authors propose that fructose specifically increases liver VLDL > > production, the lipoprotein particle that yields abnormal after-eating [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > both have near 15 grams of carb and it's not a difficult choice when > phrased in those terms. I presume you mean Guiness "draft" and the Schlitz "Budweiser": 10 g and 10.4 respetively. Guiness Export goes up to 14g. Budvar Budweiser (the real deal) von Fass, can give Guiness a run for its money when it come to quality. In the States, it is called Czechvar, and like all imported beers suffers from pasturization, but I digress ;O) http://www.realbeer.com/edu/health/calories.php > I am very glad for the popularity of micro > breweries and brew pubs that produce beer that has low residual > sugar. I take this to an extreme - I tend to have 1-2 beers per > week and at that rate I want my small number of beers to be the > very best. Give me one bottle of Belgian Chimay over a case and > a half of Miller any time. Never developed a taste for Belgian beers (lord knows I tried). I accidentally had a Miller on tap once, I told the bartender that his horse was sick. > > There you have it. HFCS makes you hungry. Boy, doesn't a big sausage > > pizza sound good? Yum, yum;O) We could even put on extra cheese. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > rice flour or whatever. Being a low carber I'll take a sausage or > soy flour crust over a rice or corn flour crust almost every time. Know of a better flour comparison than the one at http://benevolentkitchen.blogspot.com/2009/03/comparison-of-flours.html The chart is per 100g. > > HFCS was introduced into the food supply just before 1970 and increased > > rapidly to constitute > 40% of the sweeteners used by 2000 (8). The [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > as much to the epidemic. The high glycemic load of high > starch foods gets its own similar discussion. The calories provided by the U.S. food supply increased from 3,200 per capita in 1970 to 3,900 in the late 1990s, an increase of 700 per day. pg. 8, Food Politics by Marion Nestle > That time range also saw the size of burgers and their buns > increase tremendously as well. The Big Mac was invented, [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > on the topic. But also check out my approach to having a small > amount of the finest beers and a large amount of cheap beers. You really don't understand the mind of the "gourmand" do you? What good is temptation, if you can't give in, once and a while, or more often? Thanks for the feed back. Signature- Billy There are three kinds of men: The ones that learn by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence and find out for themselves. Will Rogers http://countercurrents.org/roberts020709.htm http://www.tomdispatch.com/p/zinn > It is odd though, that endlessly hungry, if you don't die from it, > let's you live longer. It doesn't just seem longer, but actually longer > in a months, years kind of sense. It isn't quite that simple so there's hope that longevity can be extended with little or no hunger. A year or two ago a Discover Magazine issue was dedicated to nutritional articles and it had several on caloric reduction. Some bits of it add up to me. 1) Dogs have blood T3 thyroid levels about 10 times the human level and humans live about 7+ times as long as dogs. I once had a Shar Pei dog with hypothyroid and the vet told me to explain carefully to the pharmacist the prescription was for a dog not a human. I've been on thyroid tablets for many years and sure sure the dog's dosage was 6-8 times my dosage. 2) Human blood T3 thyroid levels move up and down with carb intake as well as with total caloric intake. Search for studies take should T3 levels dropping 14 days after the start of a very low calorie diet or dropping 14 days after the start of a very low carb diet and there are plenty out there. Incidentally this is why "less is not more" on low carb plans. 3) The life extension effect from lowered calories seemed to use lowering thyroid output as the most common method. Adding these up I think very long term low carb dieting near 50 carb grams per day with occasional dips near 20 per day would be likely to cause at least some of the life extension traits. And it could happen with little or no hunger. Yet the examples discussed in the articles were low fat rather than low carb. Run the carbs down to 50 or less, the protein down to 100 or less, and that gives 100 fat grams for a 1500 calorie diet that could easily keep T3 thyroid outout low without hunger. Or 66 fat grams for a 1200 calorie diet that might or might not trigger hunger. Eating at those levels would be unstable to anyone who ate a meal up-plan, but that's true of nearly every dieter in a maintenance plan for the rest of their lives anyways. > > There is a chain near me (Lou Malnattis in Chicago metro) that > > offers a crust made by pressing sausage to shape. Being wheat [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > http://benevolentkitchen.blogspot.com/2009/03/comparison-of-flours.html > The chart is per 100g. Sigh. There I go repeating a blogspot URL. I wag my finger at myself scornfully ... The numbers in this chart look off to me. The numbers for almond have fewer digits than I expect. The numbers for types of legume show much lower protein and fiber than I expect so they seem to be for some sort of milled flour that isn't the entire bean ground to a powder. I like the variety in the table. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.