HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Fructose Tied to Obesity ...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 06:36 PM

Fructose Tied to Obesity as Study Shows It Doesn’t Cut Appetite

Source: Bloomberg.com

Fructose, a sweetener found on many food labels, may contribute to weight gain and obesity because it has minimal effect on brain regions that control appetite, a study by Yale University researchers found.

The research, published yesterday in the Journal of the American Medical Association, is the first to compare the human brain’s response to both fructose and glucose, two types of simple sugars used separately and together to sweeten food.

Researchers have long suspected that increased consumption of food flavored with fructose, a substance sweeter to the taste than glucose, may contribute to the U.S. obesity epidemic. The latest study used brain imaging to measure activity after the sweeteners were consumed. It found that only glucose had the ability to reduce blood flow in areas of the brain that regulate appetite, stopping people from wanting to eat more.

The data “surely suggest that it’s probably not in your best interest to have high fructose-containing drinks because they’re not going to cause you to be full, and you’ll tend to consume more calories,” said Robert Sherwin, a professor of medicine at Yale University School of Medicine in New Haven, Connecticut, in a telephone interview.


Read more: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-01/fructose-tied-to-obesity-as-study-shows-it-doesn-t-cut-appetite.html

23 replies, 2984 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 23 replies Author Time Post
Reply Fructose Tied to Obesity as Study Shows It Doesn’t Cut Appetite (Original post)
NeoConsSuck Jan 2013 OP
Berlum Jan 2013 #1
Thor_MN Jan 2013 #12
cosmicone Jan 2013 #14
Thor_MN Jan 2013 #21
cosmicone Jan 2013 #22
Thor_MN Jan 2013 #23
d_r Jan 2013 #2
Igel Jan 2013 #16
RC Jan 2013 #3
ginnyinWI Jan 2013 #4
NoMoreWarNow Jan 2013 #5
jeff47 Jan 2013 #7
jeff47 Jan 2013 #6
BadgerKid Jan 2013 #8
jeff47 Jan 2013 #9
Undismayed Jan 2013 #10
jeff47 Jan 2013 #11
Undismayed Jan 2013 #13
jeff47 Jan 2013 #15
CTyankee Jan 2013 #18
jeff47 Jan 2013 #19
CTyankee Jan 2013 #20
Odin2005 Jan 2013 #17

Response to NeoConsSuck (Original post)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 06:41 PM

1. Generally made from Genetically Mutant Crap corn

that has been bathed in Roundup-poisoned soil, nurtured with petrochems, and then pumped into your bloodstream as you merrily, obliviously glug & guzzle... Cue the Corporate Bunko Artistes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Berlum (Reply #1)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 10:32 PM

12. You mean the glucose??? Because that is what corn sugar is. Glucose.

The study says that high fructose is questionable, so there goes drinking fruit juices... The amount of fear and woo on the topic of sweeteners is incredible. The bib problem is not what sweeteners, it's how much is consumed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thor_MN (Reply #12)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 10:38 PM

14. HFCS

i.e. "High Fructose Corn Syrup" is the cheap sweetening food additive that is made from corn and is liberally used by food manufacturers. Worldwide epidemic of obesity has occurred since the advent of HFCS by Japanese researchers.

It is way cheaper and sweeter than real sugar (sucrose) and profits drive its use.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cosmicone (Reply #14)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 08:42 PM

21. I'm well aware that HFCS is aproximately 50% glucose and 50% fructose, just like

succrose. There is essentially no difference between the two. The problem is how much sugar (from any source) is added to foods. They do the same with salt. If all the food companies would just back off all the added sugar and salt, we would be healthier and not notice the difference.

Fear mongering about HFCS serves no purpose other than to label oneself as a woo-woo conspiracy theorist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cosmicone (Reply #14)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 06:04 AM

22. Actually, HFCS-55 is 55% Frutose and 42% Glucose

and that is the most commonly used form.

HFCS-90 is 90% Fructose and 10% Glucose.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cosmicone (Reply #22)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 09:21 AM

23. And there is also HFCS 42

About the only thing HFCS 90 is used to make HFCS 55 from HFCS 42, but it all sure sounds scary, doesn't it?

Once again, the source of sugar means jack. It's the amount of sugar consumed that is the problem.

We are so overdosed on sugar that we have tolerance, it takes a lot of sugar for the average American to say something is sweet. People who aren't used to American processed foods think they are overly sweet. Food producers could wean us off the sugar and salt if they wanted and no one would even notice, until they needed to buy smaller clothes.

If you want to be a "follow the money" conspiracy theorist, you don't have to look any further than the Corn Lobby. The reason corn syrup it is cheap is the subsidies given to the big corn producers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NeoConsSuck (Original post)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 06:41 PM

2. the mri sudy is making the news

But I thoight we already knew the mechanics of this thrpugh leptin?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to d_r (Reply #2)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 10:42 PM

16. We did.

Years ago. Not "a lot of years," but years.

It's one argument against apple juice for infants, as well. Rots their teeth, makes the tykes fat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NeoConsSuck (Original post)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 07:15 PM

3. Fructose is also tied to a fatty liver.

 

The liver metabolizes fructose the same as alcohol and does in the same damage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NeoConsSuck (Original post)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 08:15 PM

4. In other words, it turns off the brain's "I am full" signal.

And this doesn't only pertain to high fructose corn syrup. Ordinary table sugar is half fructose, half glucose.

Any time you eat sweets, be aware that your appetite won't turn off normally, and you will have to make a decision to stop eating anyway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ginnyinWI (Reply #4)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 08:18 PM

5. yep!

 

but this finding is hardly new.

Excessive fructose leads to a whole host of metabolic problems-- diabetes, heart disease, liver problems

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ginnyinWI (Reply #4)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 08:49 PM

7. No. Fructose doesn't turn it off.

Our "hungry" sensor is based on glucose. Fructose doesn't trigger it, but fructose also doesn't suppress it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NeoConsSuck (Original post)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 08:45 PM

6. Facepalm

The data “surely suggest that it’s probably not in your best interest to have high fructose-containing drinks because they’re not going to cause you to be full, and you’ll tend to consume more calories,”

HFCS in sodas is about 50% fructose, 50% glucose. Sucrose (aka sugar) is 50% fructose, 50% glucose.

Yeah, switching from HFCS to sugar is gonna make a huge difference.

Better yet, let's tell people to avoid HFCS and instead drink 100% organic, all-natural fruit juice. Which is almost all fructose and very little glucose.

I'm really tired of people searching for a magic food that will fix the "obesity epidemic" either by eating it or by avoiding it. It's really not that complicated - we eat too many calories and get too little exercise. But fixing those takes more work than magic food, so we keep getting fatter while we desperately search for magic food.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #6)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 10:02 PM

8. Didn't read the article, but I wonder if mono- vs disaccharides matters.

I think I recall that HFCS consists purely of monosaccharides. I'm thinking the control they would need to run is a drink sweetened with difructose, thereby allowing the liver to break that down.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BadgerKid (Reply #8)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 10:26 PM

9. Sucrose breaks into monosaccharides in the stomach

It breaks into fructose and glucose very, very, very quickly and then we absorb the fructose and glucose in the small intestine. So it would be extremely surprising for there to be a difference.

And again, HFCS is roughly 1/2 fructose and 1/2 glucose. Difructose isn't an analog for HFCS. Though it would be pretty easy to generate a 50% fructose 50% glucose solution from something other than corn syrup to conduct your experiment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NeoConsSuck (Original post)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 10:27 PM

10. Sugar = poison.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Undismayed (Reply #10)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 10:32 PM

11. Tell that to your brain.

Your brain cells can only eat glucose. The rest of your body's cells can eat a wider variety of food. But it's because of the brain food requirement that our "hungry sensor" is based on our glucose level.

So I really don't think one can call sugar "poison", since it's a key chemical for keeping you alive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #11)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 10:33 PM

13. Let me qualify my statement by saying excess sugar = poison.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Undismayed (Reply #13)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 10:39 PM

15. You'll get just as fat eating too much non-sugar.

It's taking in too many calories from all sources, not just sugar. Eat tons of beef and you'll still get fat despite the beef having very little sugar.

There are no magic "don't eat this and you'll be thin" foods. It's all calories in versus calories burned. Though you'll be far healthier adding to that second part instead of only restricting the first.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #15)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 12:18 PM

18. what if you eat the fruit instead of drinking the fruit juice?

I hear that it is better to eat an orange than to drink orange juice. I'm just wondering if it has the same effect on the appetite...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #18)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 03:02 PM

19. It's better, but that's because you're eating a lot of other stuff

Apple juice is apple-flavored sugar water. All-natural, but it's lots of empty calories that won't satiate your hunger.

An apple throws in a bunch of fiber with the apple-flavored sugar water, filling you up much more and thus reducing the total calories you'll eat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #19)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 04:15 PM

20. You still get the juice only not as much as you get in an 8 oz glass.

I happen to love OJ in the morning but I cut down to just 4 oz. (enough to swallow two pills) when I read about how much sugar I was actually pounding down with my big glasses of OJ every day...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NeoConsSuck (Original post)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 12:03 PM

17. I thought this was already known for a while?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread