Girls reaching puberty increasingly early, finds US study

Guardian ^ | 9 August 2010 | Ed Pilkington

[Ben Mugged]

A US study shows that almost one in four black girls and one in 10 white girls had developed breasts by the age of seven.

The findings are the latest in a string of studies showing that girls in the US are reaching puberty sooner, with implications both for the social and emotional wellbeing of girls as well as for their physical health in later life. Early maturation has been shown to cause low self-esteem and doubts about body image, as well as greater rates of eating problems, depression and attempted suicide.

It is linked to earlier sexual experiences, and later on carries greater risks of breast cancer.

The researchers found that at the age of seven 23.4% of black girls, 14.9% of Hispanics and 10.4% of white girls had developed breasts.

At 8 those proportions had risen further to 42.9%, 30.9% and 18.3% respectively.

A similar survey completed in 1997 found the proportion of white girls who had developed breasts by seven was 5% — half of what it is today.

The proportion of black girls in that bracket has also shot up in the past decade, from 15% in 1997 to 23% today.

Studies have shown that in the 1700s girls began menstruation on average at about age 17-18, though that might be as much to do with widespread malnutrition as with other factors.

Experts point to several possible causes of the declining age of puberty.

[Mase]

Maybe you were thinking about isolated soy protein. That product requires a great deal of processing. But, in the end, you get protein. So, in the end, it’s all good.

[Mase]

You read the comments on this thread and can understand why American nutrition is such a mess. What was that quote?.......Against ignorance the gods themselves contend in vain.

[Toddsterpatriot]

That’s the one.....

[Lurker]

Three words: High Protein Diet

[GatorGirl]

I think it has to do with weight.

A girl hits around 80 lbs and starts developing. 100 and her monthly visitor starts coming around.

It’s no secret kids are fatter now. This is all unscientific and anecdotal as hell but it makes as much sense as any other speculation!! :-)

[GGpaX4DumpedTea]

Eat your liver, your heart, your pancreas away with the Fructose, and with HFCS. You deserve it.

I know what I am talking, or writing about, and by the way, what are your credentials for calling me stupid?

[Toddsterpatriot]

I know what I am talking, or writing about,

Really?

How does your body know the difference between this,

The fructose in HFCS and this

The fructose release when your body breaks down sucrose?

Explain how your body distinguishes between these two molecules.

[GGpaX4DumpedTea]

So you do not believe the studies...you are smarter...the studies say our bodies do know the difference...and there are many other studies besides the two I gave you...and btw, your credentials?

[Toddsterpatriot]

So you do not believe the studies

Did you explain the difference between the 2 fructose molecules?

the studies say our bodies do know the difference...

Which studies say our bodies can distinguish between those 2 fructose molecules?

[aruanan]

It’s no secret kids are fatter now. This is all unscientific and anecdotal as hell but it makes as much sense as any other speculation!! :-)

It's not unscientific. If a girl does not have sufficient body fat, her onset of menses will be delayed. In fact, once menses has started, it can be stopped by lowering body fat below a certain point. Although there may be special cases of early pubertal development because of accidental exposure to exogenous sex hormones or to tumor growth, the controlling factor is body fat.

As far as fructose is concerned, your body cannot distinguish between the fructose in HFCS and the fructose in a tablespoon of sucrose because there is no chemical difference.

The main problem is not dietary sucrose versus fructose (not least because sucrose is 50% fructose), but a caloric intake in excess of caloric expenditure. A benefit of a high fat diet is that a high fat content suppresses appetite, but a high fat diet in excess of caloric expenditure will lead to the same kinds of medical problems as a high carbohydrate diet in excess of caloric expenditure. When the body is confronted with excess calories it has to deal with the three macronutrients in three different way in terms of available storage:

Proteins--there is no storage form for protein. Dietary protein (amino acids and di and small polypeptides) in excess of immediate protein synthesis needs is immediately metabolized either in the glycolytic pathway or the lipolytic pathway, depending on the type of amino acid.

Carbohydrates--there is only about a 2 or 3 day storage buffer for carbohydrates in the form of glycogen. Once glycogen stores are maxed out, the increased levels of serum glucose can result in glycosylation of proteins, a bad, bad thing.

Fats: there is relatively unlimited storage of fats in adipose tissue. If the adipose cells get filled beyond a certain capacity, adipose stem cells are triggered to form new adipose cells to handle the call for storage. The bad thing is that fat cells don't die when depleted of their fat stores, they just shrink. And if they're shrunk below a certain point, they start signaling that the body is going into negative energy balance and increase appetite to replenish themselves to safe levels of fats.

If you're consistently eating a hypercaloric diet, your body will burn proteins in preference to carbohydrates in preference to fats (though there are some processes such as resting metabolism of muscle tissue and cardiac tissue that consists predominantly of fat oxidation; the brain, on the other hand, is mostly glucose oxidation). If there is a great deal of carbohydrates in the diet, the body will preferentially shift metabolism away from fat oxidation and toward glucose oxidation because of the danger of increased serum glucose and store the dietary fat in adipose tissue. This is why the fats in your fat stores are basically a reflection of your dietary fats since the human body (unlike cattle and pigs) makes very little de novo fat.

This in mind, take note of the highlighted portions of the abstract posted below:

Nutrition. 2010 May 13. [Epub ahead of print]
Fructose and metabolic diseases: New findings, new questions.
Tappy L, Lê KA, Tran C, Paquot N.

Department of Physiology, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland;
Service of Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism, CHUV,
Lausanne, Switzerland.

Abstract
There has been much concern regarding the role of dietary fructose in the development of metabolic diseases. This concern arises from the continuous increase in fructose (and total added caloric sweeteners consumption) in recent decades, and from the increased use of high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) as a sweetener. A large body of evidence shows that a high-fructose diet leads to the development of obesity, diabetes, and dyslipidemia in rodents. In humans, fructose has long been known to increase plasma triglyceride concentrations. In addition, when ingested in large amounts as part of a hypercaloric diet, it can cause hepatic insulin resistance, increased total and visceral fat mass, and accumulation of ectopic fat in the liver and skeletal muscle. These early effects may be instrumental in causing, in the long run, the development of the metabolic syndrome. There is however only limited evidence that fructose per se, when consumed in moderate amounts, has deleterious effects. Several effects of a high-fructose diet in humans can be observed with high-fat or high-glucose diets as well, suggesting that an excess caloric intake may be the main factor involved in the development of the metabolic syndrome. The major source of fructose in our diet is with sweetened beverages (and with other products in which caloric sweeteners have been added). The progressive replacement of sucrose by HFCS is however unlikely to be directly involved in the epidemy of metabolic disease, because HFCS appears to have basically the same metabolic effects as sucrose. Consumption of sweetened beverages is however clearly associated with excess calorie intake, and an increased risk of diabetes and cardiovascular diseases through an increase in body weight. This has led to the recommendation to limit the daily intake of sugar calories. Copyright © 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. PMID: 20471804 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]

[Yardstick]

Yes, they both form a mixture of fructose and glucose in your stomach after the sucrose has been broken down some. But the the proportion of fructose and glucose is different, and it doesn’t seem inconceivable that the body would respond differently to the different proportions. Maybe more fructose triggers a greater insulin response that causes more weight gain.

[Toddsterpatriot]

But the the proportion of fructose and glucose is different,

Do you feel a higher proportion of fructose is bad? Or a higher proportion of glucose?

[Toddsterpatriot]

As far as fructose is concerned, your body cannot distinguish between the fructose in HFCS and the fructose in a tablespoon of sucrose because there is no chemical difference.

Thanks. Some people never learn.

[Yardstick]

It’s all glucose in the end. But during the time when both exist in your stomach, I’m saying it’s possible your body might have a different response to a higher proportion of fructose. For instance it might release more insulin. That could be an explanation for the chubby lab rats in the study the other guy posted.

Does this seem inconceivable to you?

[GGpaX4DumpedTea]

First of all, the ‘anecdotal’ evidence relating to many nutritional benefits, good or bad, beats the ‘scientific studies’ that supports FDA approval of Big Pharma drugs.

My early comments on this thread were not related to HFCS, but to the adverse effects of soy. And though you say the ‘fructose’ in HFCS and that in Sucrose are the same, the body obviously does not see it that way. HFCS induces obesity to a much greater extend than does sucrose.

Fructose damages liver and pancreas in ways that sucrose apparently does not.

[GGpaX4DumpedTea]

Don’t be so lazy, do your own google searches if you don’t have the answers. Obviously you lack credentials...?

[aruanan]

First of all, the ‘anecdotal’ evidence relating to many nutritional benefits, good or bad, beats the ‘scientific studies’ that supports FDA approval of Big Pharma drugs.

First of all, anecdotal "evidence" isn't controlled and, therefore, at best is only suggestive.

My early comments on this thread were not related to HFCS, but to the adverse effects of soy. And though you say the ‘fructose’ in HFCS and that in Sucrose are the same, the body obviously does not see it that way. HFCS induces obesity to a much greater extend than does sucrose.

Assertion isn't demonstration. You cannot make a conclusion such as this on the basis of anecdotes because there's no objective, independent baseline against which to measure any effects and in the context of which to distinguish causes and effects.

Fructose damages liver and pancreas in ways that sucrose apparently does not.

Sucrose is 50% fructose.

[Toddsterpatriot]

do your own google searches

I already know your body can't distinguish between the 2 fructose molecules. I don't need to search.

[GGpaX4DumpedTea]

I suggest you begin right now to consume all the HFCS you can find out there...scoff it down...your body needs it. And go for the soy too. Your body will ‘love’ you...then one morning really ‘hate’ you. So go for it...put your body’s wellbeing where your mouth is.

[Toddsterpatriot]

I suggest you begin right now to consume all the HFCS you can find out there

And how would my body's reaction be different than if I consumed all the sucrose I can find out there?