Ohio puts 200-pound third-grader in foster care

Yahoo/AP ^ | 11/28/11

[EBH]

CLEVELAND (AP)

[Future Useless Eater]

Thanks for the Vitamin E / selenium tip.

I had/have sugar/fructose-induced nafld and have been years trying to turn it around.

I will read up on that ‘fix’.

[Future Useless Eater]

I will bet that neverdem will at least partially back me up that this is legit.

There are dozens if not hundreds of researchers who have become convinced that fructose is causing our increase in the metabolic syndrome and nafld. And I don't think Dr. Lustig is ax-grinding or that he did a private theoretical study.

He is a professor in Pediatrics in the division of Endocrinology so he is an expert on this stuff including the physiology and bio-chemistry. And he is good at fitting together the pieces of the puzzle from lots of OTHER people's research studies, that explain the mechanics of how this all this is happening.

Feel free to watch some his educational seminar while you surf, and see if he doesn't convince you. I found him fascinating and he kept my interest thru the whole thing. If he doesn't keep your interest, fine, turn him off and call him a quack.

http://www.uctv.tv/search-details.aspx?showID=16717
If that plays jerky, you can download the file first before playing it...
http://podcast.uctv.tv/vod/16717.mp4

I AM aware that Princeton had a recent study that concluded that HFCS was the culprit and not the fructose in regular table sugar, but that study was done with rats and has yet to be confirmed by others, or in humans. (I wondered if the sugar industry had any connection to Princeton - a lot of researchers get influenced by lobbyists)

Lustig does not believe that is true (based on his experience with humans). He believes that table sugar is quickly separated into its two molecules "in two seconds flat" by an enzyme in our gut called sucrase, and THEN the fructose molecule from sugar is identical to the free fructose molecule from HFCS, as it heads to our liver.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Thanks for mentioning sucrase, which I was able to look up in Wikipedia. As with hemophilia, an unusual illness serves to illustrate the normal working of the body.

Sucrose intolerance (also known as Congenital Sucrase-Isomaltase Deficiency (CSID) or Sucrase-isomaltase deficiency) occurs when sucrase is not secreted in the small intestine. With sucrose intolerance, the result of consuming sucrose is excess gas production and often diarrhea and malabsorption.

Anyhow, the point is this doesn't happen until the small intestine is reached. If a mix of sucrose-containing confectionery and "healthy" fibrous foods is consumed, it isn't going to be "two seconds flat" from the point of tasting the sugar before getting it in the bloodstream as fructose. There's that pesky stomach in between, letting partially digested food out into the duodenum little by little through a sphincter. Not even liquids get a quick pass into the duodenum, because the stomach lining is a sponge for getting their water content into the bloodstream.

This ain't even medicine, it's high school biology.

[HiTech RedNeck]

AND, HFCS tends to have a higher share of fructose than does sucrose. If fructose is the problem ingredient, HFCS is a bigger problem than sucrose.

[BillGunn]

Making him a ward of the state with no better record than his parents will be the answer.

Oh wait

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

Research paper #1, conclusions are that silymarin (OTC)
(derived from milk thistle) is an effective way to treat
NAFLD.

http://is.gd/FqXoWN

Research paper #2, agrees, and more specific as to how.

http://is.gd/jWZ4sp

Research paper #3, conclusions are that people taking
silymarin to self treat liver problems, are not taking
enough, and not often enough, because it is quickly
metabolized.

http://is.gd/y23TY1

[Future Useless Eater]

You can have the last word on those points because you’re probably right, especially on the math ratio part if that makes a difference. And its conceivable that it may make a difference where in the gut it gets separated and shunted to the liver. More research on this would be a good thing.

The other data that backs Lustig up is that long before the invention of HFCS, civilizations that did not have refined sugar had no diabetes or heart disease. Then they got those diseases and more, after starting trade with western countries that refined the sweet white stuff. And long ago, when sugar was prohibitively expensive to the poor, these were diseases only of the rich and royalty.

Until he’s proven wrong, I’ll stick with the safer Lustig conclusion: that they are both ~~equally bad. Especially for me with an already damaged liver from fructose. There are probably millions of other like me but don’t know it.

[Future Useless Eater]

>> silymarin (OTC)(derived from milk thistle) is an effective way to treat NAFLD.

Thanks again. I will read up on that.


I've often wondered if would be a good idea to suggest to my friends and family that want to cook with sugar that they use this product instead (the clear variety only), as it should be healthier for those of us with existing fructose damage, or fructose intolerance [or maybe for anyone actually], since it is 100% glucose(dextrose) and with no fructose at all; no fructans/frucmal/FODMOPs, and this brand in particular swears they do not, and will not use any HFCS in this product.
Other similar brands might include HFCS to save money.


well, by asking that question, now I'm puzzled again, I had read "corn syrup" was 100% dextrose (glucose), but now I see the nutrition label says 30 carbs, but only 10 sugars. Hmm... what are the other 20 carbs if not sugar?

[HiTech RedNeck]

How did you get a physician’s diagnosis that you have a fructose induced cirrhosis?

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

It can get more complicated then that. First, to clarify about corn syrup:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corn_syrup

That being said, it is equally important to look at sugar metabolism in the human body. And that is nose-bleed territory, as far as degree of difficulty goes. But here are some of the critical points:

1) All carbohydrates have equal calories, but the size of their molecule, short, medium, or long chain, describes how easy they are to digest, where in the GI tract they digest, if at all, how they affect the blood sugar level, liver, fat and immune system, etc. However, how the body detects and handles different sugars is not necessarily optimal for their use, and is easily fooled.

2) Carbohydrates are also rarely unto themselves in our diet, and their rules change depending on what they are consumed with. Even artificial sweeteners with zero calories can create some of the same responses as real sugars. And different sugars can likewise befuddle the system.

3) The human metabolism can also act independently of what is consumed to change how it treats sugars. Obesity, alcohol, hormonal changes, chronic diseases and intestinal flora are reactive with the process to an impressive degree.

The bottom line in which just about everyone agrees, is that most people need less sugars and sweeteners of all kinds in their diets.

[Future Useless Eater]

Thanks. You are a treasure trove of information!

[petercooper]

If the kid stopped eating Big Macs and ate celery and salad for 4 weeks, he’d drop an easy 50 lbs.