Look at me, I turn into butter in your body and I hypnotize you to force you to continue eating.
Posted on 04/14/2009 11:42:35 AM PDT by SonOfDarkSkies
But veteran dieters know something that some researchers apparently don't: Certain foods seem to fuel the appetite like pouring gasoline on a fire. Some people find that once they start eating bread, cookies, chocolate, potato chips -- or leftover Easter candy -- they lose all sense of fullness and find it difficult to stop.
...
After 23 years of treating patients -- some of it espousing liquid diets -- Dr. Aronne has concluded that refined carbohydrates and foods with high sugar and fat content promote what he calls "fullness resistance." They interfere with the complex hormonal messages the body usually sends to the brain to signal that it's time to stop eating. People feel hungrier instead.
This happens in part because refined carbohydrates raise blood-sugar levels, setting up an insulin surge that drives blood sugar down again, causing rebound hunger. That insulin spike also interferes with leptin, the hormone secreted by fat cells that should tell the body to stop eating. Obese people have loads of leptin, but it either doesn't get to the brain, or the brain becomes resistant to it. "This is not a failure of willpower, it's a physical mechanism," Dr. Aronne writes. The body also becomes resistant to insulin, setting the stage for diabetes.
Other researchers have described similar phenomena. An article in this month's Medical Hypothesis argues that for some people, refined foods with high sugar and carbohydrate content can be just as addictive as tobacco and alcohol.
Eating foods high in protein, vegetables, fiber and water have the opposite effect, Dr. Aronne says. His plan recommends revising what you eat, one meal at a time, to restore your sense of fullness:
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, November 2002 Vol. 76, No. 5, 911-92
"Glucose is metabolized in every cell in the body but all fructose must be metabolized in the liver.6 The livers of test animals fed large amounts of fructose develop fatty deposits and cirrhosis, similar to problems that develop in the livers of alcoholics."
Fructose is No Answer For a Sweetener
"Pure fructose contains no enzymes, vitamins or minerals and robs the body of its micronutrient treasures in order to assimilate itself for physiological use. While naturally occurring sugars, as well as sucrose, contain fructose bound to other sugars, high fructose corn syrup contains a good deal of "free" or unbound fructose. Research indicates that this free fructose interferes with the heart’s use of key minerals like magnesium, copper and chromium. Among other consequences, HFCS has been implicated in elevated blood cholesterol levels and the creation of blood clots. It has been found to inhibit the action of white blood cells so that they are unable to defend the body against harmful foreign invaders."
Yes, fructose is converted by the liver into glucose. We've known this for a long, long time.
The livers of test animals fed large amounts of fructose develop fatty deposits and cirrhosis, similar to problems that develop in the livers of alcoholics."
Cramming lab rats full of chemicals that has absolutely no relationship to real world consumption by humans will cause all sorts of maladies to occur within the animal. Humans, on average, derive less than 8% of their total calories from fructose. No human consumes straight fructose. So how is it relevant that a lab rat is fed 25%, or more, of its total calories from straight fructose?
Pure fructose contains no enzymes
Why would this matter? Your body produces all the enzymes it needs.
vitamins or minerals and robs the body of its micronutrient treasures in order to assimilate itself for physiological use
Micronutrient treasures robbed? LOL! That's loopy. Why should HFCS, or sugar for that matter, supply vitamins and minerals?
While naturally occurring sugars, as well as sucrose, contain fructose bound to other sugars, high fructose corn syrup contains a good deal of "free" or unbound fructose.
A "good deal" of "free or unbound fructose?" All of the fructose in HFCS is free/unbound.
Research indicates that this free fructose interferes with the heart’s use of key minerals like magnesium, copper and chromium.
This is more nonsense. Sugar (sucrose) is hydrolyzed in the gut into free fructose and glucose. If HFCS causes this to happen (it doesn't) then so does sugar (sucrose). Both sucrose and HFCS are made up of the same two chemicals (fructose and glucose) so how can one interfere with your heart while the other does not?
Among other consequences, HFCS has been implicated in elevated blood cholesterol levels and the creation of blood clots. It has been found to inhibit the action of white blood cells so that they are unable to defend the body against harmful foreign invaders."
This is nutty but if it were true you'd have to say the same thing about regular old table sugar.
I found this from the link you provided:
Most corn syrup is 97% glucose yet this wacky website wants you to believe that corn syrup is made from fructose. If they can't even get this simple fact right how much of what they write is also suspect? I'd say most of it. There is a lot of misinformation on the internet and you've found some of it.
As for HFCS having a "unique metabolic mechanism that differes from other carbohydrates....."
Sugars and satiety: does the type of sweetener make a difference?
HFCS and sugar have similar metabolic mechanisms (April 7, 2006)
At this time, there is no scientific evidence to suggest that humans utilize either HFCS-42 or HFCS-55 any differently than sucrose, invert sugar, or honey. All disaccharides are completely hydrolyzed in the gastrointestinal tract into their simple sugar (monosaccharide) components prior to absorption. In order to hydrolyze sucrose into fructose and glucose, the small intestine secretes an enzyme known as sucrase, which is abundant and not rate -limiting. Consequently, the rate of absorption for the monosaccharide components of sucrose and HFCS is likely to be equal in both speed and completeness.
Fructose and glucose are absorbed and metabolized differently by the human body.10,11 However, fructose is fructose and glucose is glucose regardless of the source-HFCS, sucrose, invert sugar, or honey. In other words, after hydrolysis in the gut, the monosaccharides derived from these sweeteners are physiologically indistinguishable to the human body.
From: Nutrition Today: Volume 40(6) November/December 2005 pp 253-256 by: Gayle L. Hein, BS, and Maureen L. Storey, PhD, Center for Food, Nutrition, and Agriculture Policy, University of Maryland-College Park, College Park, MD (previously at Center for Food and Nutrition Policy, Virginia Tech-National Capital Region, Alexandria, VA). John S. White, PhD, White Technical Research, Argenta, IL. David R. Lineback, PhD, University of Maryland/US Food and Drug Administration, Joint Institute for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, College Park, MD. Corresponding author: Maureen L. Storey, PhD, Center for Food, Nutrition, and Agriculture Policy, University of Maryland-College Park, 1122 Patapsco Building, College Park, MD 20742 (e-mail: storey@umd.edu).
It's a subscription site so I am unable to link you to it.
Then why did you ask if you already new the answer?
Your body processes fructose differently. I think that the jury is still out on whether it is actually harmful, but there is no argument, not even from you, on whether the human body has to work differently to process fructose.
Another poster said: “Some people find that once they start eating bread, cookies, chocolate, potato chips — or leftover Easter candy — they lose all sense of fullness and find it difficult to stop.”
The poster I replied to responded by saying this: "This is the metabolic mechanism of high fructose corn syrup, which is now used in everything."
I asked him to expound on the "metabolic mechanism" in HFCS that supposedly makes people lose all sense of fullness thereby preventing them from being able to stop eating. He couldn't so you linked me to some wacky website that still doesn't answer the question.
Now, are you trying to tell me that because fructose is converted into glucose by the liver that it causes people to lose control of their ability to manage their caloric intake? Is that an argument you really want to make?
People get fat because they eat more than they burn. Overeating is a learned behavior and has nothing to do with evil chemicals or food ingredients. Obese people may want to blame it on something other than overeating but that nonsense cannot be supported.
Your body processes fructose differently.
Differently than what: Galactose? Starch? Lactose? Glucose?
So what? Your liver converts fructose to glucose and it all ends up in the Krebs cycle at the same level.
I think that the jury is still out on whether it is actually harmful
Based on what, some wacky website that doesn't even understand that corn syrup is made up of glucose and not fructose? If fructose is harmful then you have to believe that fruit, fruit juice, honey and regular old table sugar are also harmful. Is that what you believe? Eating too much of anything can be bad for you. People die from drinking too much water.
but there is no argument, not even from you, on whether the human body has to work differently to process fructose.
Why is this bad? Can you also defend the statement that HFCS causes people to lose all sense of fullness and that they become unable to stop consuming food?
What I'm telling you is that fructose is metabolized in a different manner than glucose or sucrose and as such, some people have difficulty in maintaining a proper blood sugar level.
The point is that many food product manufacturers went about replacing sucrose with fructose as if it were exactly the same thing. It isn't.
People get fat because they eat more than they burn.
Absolutely
Overeating is a learned behavior and has nothing to do with evil chemicals or food ingredients. Obese people may want to blame it on something other than overeating but that nonsense cannot be supported.
And now you had to go and say something dumb.
Different sugars are processed differently by the body. The amount of that difference varies from person to person. To say in a general statement that the only reason people are obese is because they eat too much is just dumb. Granted, for many people, the way the body converts fructose versus sucrose makes a negligible difference. But for others, the difference between the body's reaction to consuming fructose and sucrose can cause all manner of difficulty.
So what? Your liver converts fructose to glucose and it all ends up in the Krebs cycle at the same level.
Yes and if I pee in your soup it's all going to end up with you peeing the liquid out.
Why is this bad? Can you also defend the statement that HFCS causes people to lose all sense of fullness and that they become unable to stop consuming food?
Well, how about this statement:
"Both plasma insulin and leptin act in the central nervous system in the long-term regulation of energy homeostasis. Because fructose does not stimulate insulin secretion from pancreatic ß cells, the consumption of foods and beverages containing fructose produces smaller postprandial insulin excursions than does consumption of glucose-containing carbohydrate. Because leptin production is regulated by insulin responses to meals, fructose consumption also reduces circulating leptin concentrations. The combined effects of lowered circulating leptin and insulin in individuals who consume diets that are high in dietary fructose could therefore increase the likelihood of weight gain and its associated metabolic sequelae. In addition, fructose, compared with glucose, is preferentially metabolized to lipid in the liver. Fructose consumption induces insulin resistance, impaired glucose tolerance, hyperinsulinemia, hypertriacylglycerolemia, and hypertension in animal models."
So, unless you want to claim that the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition is just another "wacky website" you might want to tone down your attitude and do some reading.
This isn't some conspiracy theory. My wife had the darndest time losing weight, even on an 800 calorie a day diet. She ended up in a study at Duke University Medical Center and was diagnosed by their team of endocrinologists as insulin resistant.
By eliminating all most complex carbohydrates and returning to a diet in meats, vegetables and simple sugars she lost 110 lbs.
So who am I going to believe, you, or my lying eyes, Duke University Medical Center and the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition?
If you don't even know that 50% of sucrose is made from fructose then it will be impossible for you to understand that a healthy body should have no problems maintaining a proper blood sugar level. To really understand nutrition and physiology you have to have some knowledge of it.
The point is that many food product manufacturers went about replacing sucrose with fructose as if it were exactly the same thing. It isn't.
You're embarrassing yourself. Sucrose is made up of two chemicals (glucose and fructose) in equal proportions (50% each). High fructose corn syrup is commercialized in two forms. One is 42% fructose and 58% glucose while the other is 55% fructose and 45% glucose. When food manufacturers replaced sucrose (table sugar) with high fructose corn syrup, they didn't change the two chemicals you consume. They are essentially the same thing and your body cannot distinguish between fructose and glucose from HFCS and fructose and glucose from sucrose. I can't make it any simpler than that.
Different sugars are processed differently by the body.
So what? They're all carbohydrates and offer 4 calories per gram. Why is that scary?
The amount of that difference varies from person to person.
Huh? Some people get more than 4 calories per gram from the same carb and some get less? What do you mean by this? Do you even know?
To say in a general statement that the only reason people are obese is because they eat too much is just dumb.
Really? Then explain to me how burning more calories than you consume will cause you to gain weight. You could become the first person to disprove the first law of thermodynamics.
Granted, for many people, the way the body converts fructose versus sucrose makes a negligible difference. But for others, the difference between the body's reaction to consuming fructose and sucrose can cause all manner of difficulty.
You don't even know that sucrose is comprised of fructose and you want me to believe you when you say that consuming fructose (and sucrose LOL!) can cause all sorts of difficulties. I am noting here that you've said nothing thus far about people who may suffer from fructose intolerance.
Yes and if I pee in your soup it's all going to end up with you peeing the liquid out.
You think it's immaterial that glucose and fructose both end up in the Krebs cycle as 3x2 carbon fragments? Did you struggle in school with biology and chemistry?
So, unless you want to claim that the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition is just another "wacky website" you might want to tone down your attitude and do some reading.
If I thought you had any understanding of the abstract you linked I'd be happy to go into detail as to why this research does not support your suggestions.
"Both plasma insulin and leptin act in the central nervous system in the long-term regulation of energy homeostasis. Because fructose does not stimulate insulin secretion from pancreatic ß cells, the consumption of foods and beverages containing fructose produces smaller postprandial insulin excursions than does consumption of glucose-containing carbohydrate.”
As long as it is fructose it doesn’t stimulate insulin. This statement, however, is highly biased since fructose is quickly converted into glucose by the liver which then stimulates the release of insulin. This is agenda driven research designed to influence the reader into a desired conclusion.
Because leptin production is regulated by insulin responses to meals, fructose consumption also reduces circulating leptin concentrations. The combined effects of lowered circulating leptin and insulin in individuals who consume diets that are high in dietary fructose could therefore increase the likelihood of weight gain and its associated metabolic sequelae. In addition, fructose, compared with glucose, is preferentially metabolized to lipid in the liver. Fructose consumption induces insulin resistance, impaired glucose tolerance, hyperinsulinemia, hypertriacylglycerolemia, and hypertension in animal models."
In animal models? How much of their diet consisted of fructose? Does this reflect similar consumption by the average human? Were the lab animals fed straight fructose or fructose in combination with glucose? You can create all kinds of desired results by managing the intake. Would a researcher be more interested in obtaining grant money than reporting the truth? Naw, that never happens. How would you even know? Tell us about all the time you spent in research focused on food ingredients.
HFCS and sugar have similar metabolic mechanisms (Friday, April 07, 2006)
So, unless you want to claim that the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition is just another "wacky website" you might want to tone down your attitude and do some reading
Thanks but I’ve done plenty of reading over the years and understand that the linked research you cite doesn’t prove what you think it does. Now, maybe you could cut and paste the part of the study that proves the "metabolic mechanism" in HFCS makes people lose all sense of fullness thereby preventing them from being able to stop eating. At least your most recent citation will understand that corn syrup is made up mostly of glucose, not fructose. It’s pretty basic stuff really. How long did you have to Google to find this report? Do you still think that fruit, fruit juice, honey and table sugar are dangerous substances that should be avoided? At some point you need to realize that too much of anything can be bad for you – especially if you’re a lab rat in an experiment being conducted by someone desperate for more grant money.
My wife had the darndest time losing weight, even on an 800 calorie a day diet.
I don’t know her metabolic rate or what her diet consisted of but I think you need at least that amount of calories a day just to maintain body heat. She must have been highly lethargic.
By eliminating all most complex carbohydrates and returning to a diet in meats, vegetables and simple sugars she lost 110 lbs.
Simple carbs resulted in weight loss and no insulin resistance while complex carbs caused insulin resistance and weight gain? People wanting a catabolic diet will prefer complex carbs from vegetables that burn more calories than they offer. Vegetables high in fiber (most vegetables) are good for this. Why she could lose weight eating protein and simple carbs but not protein and complex carbs is a mystery. Of course, I don’t know what she was consuming when she subsisted on 800 calories a day. There’s something not right about your story but at least she’s much healthier now than before.
I’m surprised Duke Medical told you it was fructose that caused her insulin resistance rather than her obesity and sedentary lifestyle. Is that what they told you? I ask only because it seems to be what you’re implying.
So who am I going to believe, you, or my lying eyes, Duke University Medical Center and the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition?
You don’t even understand that sucrose is half fructose so I’d be surprised if you understood much of what the folks over at Duke Medical told you. And I know for a fact that you don’t understand the research you Googled from the AJCN this time around. But that’s neither here nor there. The bottom line is that HFCS and sugar (sucrose) are made up of the same two chemicals, in almost identical proportions, and to your body the source of those chemicals is indistinguishable and unimportant. Eating HFCS instead of sucrose doesn’t stymie any satiation mechanisms and does not cause people to keep stuffing their faces.
Look at me, I turn into butter in your body and I hypnotize you to force you to continue eating.
Statements like this just show that your a jerk.
Even if any of your deranged rantings are accurate, your snottiness negates any point you may possibly have.
You are a boorish twit.
When someone refutes your misunderstandings with factual information and you refer to it as "deranged ranting" (LOL!) and call them "dumb" and "a jerk" it simply tells us that you really didn't know what you were talking about in the first place and that you need to grow some skin. When my kids feign outrage because they're embarrassed or hurt I offer them a lollipop or a cookie to make them feel better. Which would you prefer? They both probably have some fructose in them though. How about a hug instead?
These threads are a trip. Paleos doing nutrition. What a hoot.
LOL!
You are snotty, therefore sucrose does not contain the same ingredients as high fructose corn syrup.
I eat a one egg three slices of bacon breakfast on average once a week and don’t seem to have that problem. Moderation, perhaps?
Oh...and I’m a guy. Might make a difference.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.