Rise of Cancer: Examining the Role of Sugar and Refined Carbs

[Siv]

I think evidence is increasingly suggesting that an explosion of sugar, HFCS and refined carb consumption has led to the huge increase in incidence of cancer in the past few decades.

 

[Siv]

You will need to supply a study from a peer reviewed accepted mainstream scientific journal for this claim. Medical or scientific claims of this nature need documentation. Thanks.

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/87/5/1384
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/84/5/1171
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/80/2/348
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/86/5/1495
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/86/4/899
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/91/3/535

More and more evidence suggests carbs are the culprit, not fat - not just for cancer but diabetes, CHD and CVD. Please read "Good Calories, Bad Calories" by Gary Taubes for a ton of evidence, journal articles and references. Also read Dr. Bernstein, the Whole Health Source Blog, Heart Scan Blog and Panu.

 

[Evo]

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/87/5/1384
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/84/5/1171
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/80/2/348
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/86/5/1495
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/86/4/899
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/91/3/535

More and more evidence suggests carbs are the culprit, not fat - not just for cancer but diabetes, CHD and CVD. Please read "Good Calories, Bad Calories" by Gary Taubes for a ton of evidence, journal articles and references. Also read Dr. Bernstein, the Whole Health Source Blog, Heart Scan Blog and Panu.

Thanks Siv! That's more than I can read right now!

 

[hamster143]

I think evidence is increasingly suggesting that an explosion of sugar, HFCS and refined carb consumption has led to the huge increase in incidence of cancer in the past few decades.

I don't see that increase in the chart I posted.

 

[Siv]

I don't see that increase in the chart I posted.

I would like to see the source for that last graph. URL please.

It would be interesting to see the trends from the 1800s onwards. Processed food has started coming in from the 1930s or so, right ? Soft drinks with HFCS, refined flour products with sugar and the tons of omega-6 fats in foods etc.

 

[Proton Soup]

I would like to see the source for that last graph. URL please.

It would be interesting to see the trends from the 1800s onwards. Processed food has started coming in from the 1930s or so, right ? Soft drinks with HFCS, refined flour products with sugar and the tons of omega-6 fats in foods etc.

the increase in obesity isn't about carbs, it's about eating too many calories. Taubes is a fruitcake.

 

[hamster143]

I would like to see the source for that last graph. URL please.

It would be interesting to see the trends from the 1800s onwards. Processed food has started coming in from the 1930s or so, right ? Soft drinks with HFCS, refined flour products with sugar and the tons of omega-6 fats in foods etc.

http://cancer2000.net/

HFCS specifically appeared in the United States around 1975, and it's still quite rare outside the US. But all it did was displace some sugar. Sugar consumption was high long before that. I can't find data for the US, but sugar consumption in the UK quadrupled between 1850 and 1900 and remained within 25% of the present level since then.

The USDA website has data on consumption of red meat (mainly beef & pork) in the US going back to 1909, and those levels also have been steady for the duration at ~100 lbs/person/year. Prior to that, there were some significant regional variations. Apparently Americans always ate plenty of meat, but, for example, mid-19th century Britons only averaged 20 lbs/person/year or so.

Refined flour seems to have come into existence (and then rapidly replaced whole wheat flour) around the same time, between 1850 and 1900.

 

[Siv]

the increase in obesity isn't about carbs, it's about eating too many calories. Taubes is a fruitcake.

Cute, that brought a smile to my face :)
But your statement is still an ad hominem cum opinion.

Dare I ask you to try and rebut the plethora of evidence in Taubes' book ?!

 

[Siv]

http://cancer2000.net/

HFCS specifically appeared in the United States around 1975, and it's still quite rare outside the US.

My mistake re: HFCS. BTW its started coming into food stores here.

But all it did was displace some sugar. Sugar consumption was high long before that. I can't find data for the US, but sugar consumption in the UK quadrupled between 1850 and 1900 and remained within 25% of the present level since then.

The USDA website has data on consumption of red meat (mainly beef & pork) in the US going back to 1909, and those levels also have been steady for the duration at ~100 lbs/person/year. Prior to that, there were some significant regional variations. Apparently Americans always ate plenty of meat, but, for example, mid-19th century Britons only averaged 20 lbs/person/year or so.

Refined flour seems to have come into existence (and then rapidly replaced whole wheat flour) around the same time, between 1850 and 1900.

Hmm. Interesting.
So maybe we should see the graph from the mid 1800s. All the sugar and refined carbs should have shown some increase in cancer, obesity and CVD/CHD rates.
I do remember someone on another forum presenting evidence that it rose when carb consumption rose and saturated fat consumption fell. Again, need time to dig that up.

 

[Proton Soup]

Cute, that brought a smile to my face :)
But your statement is still an ad hominem cum opinion.

Dare I ask you to try and rebut the plethora of evidence in Taubes' book ?!

i think we can start by recognizing that americans are fatter for a simple reason: we are eating more calories. it's a simple matter of energy balance. how much heavier do you suppose an average woman would have to be to support an extra 300 or so calories a day?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diet_and_obesity#Average_calorie_consumption

i'll try to dig up some stuff on HFCS in the next day or two, but will mention a couple of things off the bat. the first is that HFCS, like sucrose (cane sugar) contains both glucose and fructose, in similar proportions. in fact, sucrose gets broken down in the stomach to exactly this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sucrose#Hydrolysis

and the whole reason you've got so much HFCS now is politics. we could have had tons of cane sugar imported cheaply from Cuba or Brazil, but our government has for a long time protected the US sugar cane industry. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hfcs

and there actually was a real issue with HFCS introducing mercury into the food supply early on, but none of this came to light until after the industry had already switched to acid/base reagents that aren't produced by mercury cell process. but that has nothing to do with glucose/fructose itself.

 

[Siv]

i think we can start by recognizing that americans are fatter for a simple reason: we are eating more calories. it's a simple matter of energy balance. how much heavier do you suppose an average woman would have to be to support an extra 300 or so calories a day?

That sounds nice but unfortunately, our body is far more complicated than that. The type of calorie matters hugely. The set points are different depending on whether your diet is high carb or low carb.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diet_and_obesity#Average_calorie_consumption

i'll try to dig up some stuff on HFCS in the next day or two, but will mention a couple of things off the bat. the first is that HFCS, like sucrose (cane sugar) contains both glucose and fructose, in similar proportions. in fact, sucrose gets broken down in the stomach to exactly this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sucrose#Hydrolysis

and the whole reason you've got so much HFCS now is politics. we could have had tons of cane sugar imported cheaply from Cuba or Brazil, but our government has for a long time protected the US sugar cane industry. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hfcs

and there actually was a real issue with HFCS introducing mercury into the food supply early on, but none of this came to light until after the industry had already switched to acid/base reagents that aren't produced by mercury cell process. but that has nothing to do with glucose/fructose itself.

Tons of wiki quotes. Dont tell me wikipedia is now a peer reviewed journal ;)
HFCS has been proven to be more harmful than ordinary sucrose - please go to pubmed and do a search on HFCS.

 

[Siv]

I doubt that. From the Office of Dietary Supplements - National Institutes of Health:

When your skin is exposed for a length of time, you burn in the sun if you don't wear sunscreen . I take a daily multi-vitamin and adhere to the dietary Guidelines from the Dietary Supplement Fact Sheet: Vitamin D :

How so? Give me a quote and the link (url) that supports your claim.

The RDA for Vitamin D is a joke. Hardly anybody tests their Vitamin D levels with a 25 hydroxy vitamin D blood test.

The Vitamin D council is a not-for-profit organization which has done tons of research on this. You should go to their website and read up on some of that.

Here are some links.

http://www.nature.com/jid/journal/v125/n5/full/5603599a.html
http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/full/134/12/3472S
http://www.vitamin-d-deficiency-symptoms.com/does-sun-exposure-cause-skin-cancer.html[/URL]
[url]http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/10/101018162934.htm[/url]

 

[Siv]

Some more useful links.

Carbohydrates and cancer: an overview of the epidemiological evidence.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17992182

Cancer cells slurp up fructose, US study finds
http://www.reuters.com/article/idAFN0210830520100802

Refined-sugar intake and the risk of colorectal cancer in humans.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8375922

Pancreatic cancer and sugar diabetes
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11368504

 

[Proton Soup]

That sounds nice but unfortunately, our body is far more complicated than that. The type of calorie matters hugely. The set points are different depending on whether your diet is high carb or low carb.

Tons of wiki quotes. Dont tell me wikipedia is now a peer reviewed journal ;)
HFCS has been proven to be more harmful than ordinary sucrose - please go to pubmed and do a search on HFCS.

oh, i will. and in the meantime, find me something from Taubes that is more than him just stating his opinion. most everything there on Pubmed attributed to G Taubes is either him commenting on a paper, or something for which he is the sole author, yet appears to simply open-ended comments.

the stuff on wikipedia is actually referenced btw, just follow the footnotes.

 

[Siv]

oh, i will. and in the meantime, find me something from Taubes that is more than him just stating his opinion. most everything there on Pubmed attributed to G Taubes is either him commenting on a paper, or something for which he is the sole author, yet appears to simply open-ended comments.

The whole book reads like pubmed. He references tons of studies and peer reviewed journals. So much so that the book is hard to get through sometimes.
Most people dismiss the book without even reading a few pages.
Same way religious folks do with Dawkins' books I guess

Plus its now being accepted by so many. More and more research indicates that saturated fat is not bad, that refined carbohydrates do harm in so many ways ...

Read up blogs by Dr William Davis, Dr Stephan Guyenet, Dr Kurt Harris, for starters.

 

[Proton Soup]

The whole book reads like pubmed. He references tons of studies and peer reviewed journals. So much so that the book is hard to get through sometimes.
Most people dismiss the book without even reading a few pages.
Same way religious folks do with Dawkins' books I guess

Plus its now being accepted by so many. More and more research indicates that saturated fat is not bad, that refined carbohydrates do harm in so many ways ...

Read up blogs by Dr William Davis, Dr Stephan Guyenet, Dr Kurt Harris, for starters.

i've read Davis' heartscanblog. he has some interesting intuition and observations. it was because of him that i switched to vitamin D in oil capsules instead of the calcium tablets. but he is not practicing science, it is the art of medicine. physicians give medical opinions. good observation and intuition may then lead some to do clinical studies, which are science.

and are you really going to bring up the paleo guys? man has been eating carbs for a http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/10/revised-paleolithic-diet/" . some of us with say, european descent, have been drinking milk for so long that we can process it without getting lactose intolerance. that is an evolutionary adaptation beyond paleo. not to mention that we've lost the ability to synthesize vitamin C, which is a pretty good sign that we used to get a lot of carbs from fruit.

oh, speaking of vitamin C, this can lead to some funny things. like a paleo blogger http://www.carnivorehealth.com/main/2009/11/27/dry-fasting-its-gnarly-effects.html" . but hey, at least he learned from his mistake, which is a lot more than you can say about most of them.

but, where were we? oh yeah, pubmed! here, try this one on for size and tell me what you think.

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/88/6/1716S"

Am J Clin Nutr. 2008 Dec;88(6):1716S-1721S.
Straight talk about high-fructose corn syrup: what it is and what it ain't.

White JS.

White Technical Research, Argenta, IL 62501, USA. white.tech.res@gmail.com
Abstract

High-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is a fructose-glucose liquid sweetener alternative to sucrose (common table sugar) first introduced to the food and beverage industry in the 1970s. It is not meaningfully different in composition or metabolism from other fructose-glucose sweeteners like sucrose, honey, and fruit juice concentrates. HFCS was widely embraced by food formulators, and its use grew between the mid-1970s and mid-1990s, principally as a replacement for sucrose. This was primarily because of its sweetness comparable with that of sucrose, improved stability and functionality, and ease of use. Although HFCS use today is nearly equivalent to sucrose use in the United States, we live in a decidedly sucrose-sweetened world: >90% of the nutritive sweetener used worldwide is sucrose. Here I review the history, composition, availability, and characteristics of HFCS in a factual manner to clarify common misunderstandings that have been a source of confusion to health professionals and the general public alike. In particular, I evaluate the strength of the popular hypothesis that HFCS is uniquely responsible for obesity. Although examples of pure fructose causing metabolic upset at high concentrations abound, especially when fed as the sole carbohydrate source, there is no evidence that the common fructose-glucose sweeteners do the same. Thus, studies using extreme carbohydrate diets may be useful for probing biochemical pathways, but they have no relevance to the human diet or to current consumption. I conclude that the HFCS-obesity hypothesis is supported neither in the United States nor worldwide.

PMID: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19064536" [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

CONCLUSIONS

The hypothesis that HFCS is a unique cause of obesity is not supportable in the United States or elsewhere, and the reasons are clear:

• HFCS has the same sugars composition as other "benign" fructose-glucose sweeteners such as sucrose, honey, and fruit juice concentrates and dietary sources such as fruits and juices;
• Increased caloric intake since 1970 was not due to added sugars (including HFCS) but rather was due to increased consumption of all caloric nutrients, especially fats and flour and cereals;
• HFCS is consumed in equal amounts with sucrose in the United States, but at <10% of the amount of sucrose worldwide;
• Fructose-glucose sweeteners are metabolized through the same pathways regardless of dietary source;
• Although pure fructose can cause metabolic upsets at high concentrations and in the absence of glucose, such experiments are irrelevant for HFCS, which is not consumed at extreme high levels and contains both fructose and glucose;
• There is no longer an association between HFCS and obesity in the United States: per capita consumption of HFCS has declined in recent years, whereas obesity rates continue to rise; and
• There is absolutely no association between HFCS use and worldwide obesity; HFCS is really a minor sweetener in the global perspective.

No one would disagree that HFCS as a caloric ingredient can lead to weight gain if products sweetened with it are consumed to excess. After all, the same may be said for all caloric ingredients, such as fats, protein, alcohol, and other carbohydrates. But there is absolutely no proof that HFCS acts in any exclusive manner to promote obesity. It is time to retire the hypothesis that HFCS is uniquely responsible for obesity. (Other articles in this supplement to the Journal include references 34-37.)

 

[Siv]

i've read Davis' heartscanblog. he has some interesting intuition and observations. it was because of him that i switched to vitamin D in oil capsules instead of the calcium tablets. but he is not practicing science, it is the art of medicine. physicians give medical opinions. good observation and intuition may then lead some to do clinical studies, which are science.

and are you really going to bring up the paleo guys? man has been eating carbs for a http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/10/revised-paleolithic-diet/" . some of us with say, european descent, have been drinking milk for so long that we can process it without getting lactose intolerance. that is an evolutionary adaptation beyond paleo. not to mention that we've lost the ability to synthesize vitamin C, which is a pretty good sign that we used to get a lot of carbs from fruit.

Ok. I post more than 8 links re: vitamin D, the damage of HFCS, sugar and refined carbs, their links to cancer etc ... and what have I got in response ?!

but, where were we? oh yeah, pubmed! here, try this one on for size and tell me what you think.

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/88/6/1716S"

Umm... let me see. Did you read the entire article, right upto the end? I'm sure you did not miss this

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author is a consultant to the food and beverage industry in nutritive sweeteners, including HFCS and sucrose. His professional associations, past and present, include individual food industry companies as well as such organizations as the American Chemical Society, American Council on Science and Health, Calorie Control Council, Corn Refiners Association, Institute of Food Technologists, and International Life Sciences Institute.

And this is not the only "study" sponsored by the food industry to try and do damage control to damaging evidence being revealed more and more. And all of them are available free full text

Now here you go re: the real evidence showing how bad HFCS really is.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19064538
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19381015

Studies in animals have documented that, compared with glucose, dietary fructose induces dyslipidemia and insulin resistance. To assess the relative effects of these dietary sugars during sustained consumption in humans, overweight and obese subjects consumed glucose- or fructose-sweetened beverages providing 25% of energy requirements for 10 weeks. Although both groups exhibited similar weight gain during the intervention, visceral adipose volume was significantly increased only in subjects consuming fructose. Fasting plasma triglyceride concentrations increased by approximately 10% during 10 weeks of glucose consumption but not after fructose consumption. In contrast, hepatic de novo lipogenesis (DNL) and the 23-hour postprandial triglyceride AUC were increased specifically during fructose consumption. Similarly, markers of altered lipid metabolism and lipoprotein remodeling, including fasting apoB, LDL, small dense LDL, oxidized LDL, and postprandial concentrations of remnant-like particle-triglyceride and -cholesterol significantly increased during fructose but not glucose consumption. In addition, fasting plasma glucose and insulin levels increased and insulin sensitivity decreased in subjects consuming fructose but not in those consuming glucose. These data suggest that dietary fructose specifically increases DNL, promotes dyslipidemia, decreases insulin sensitivity, and increases visceral adiposity in overweight/obese adults.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19208729

CONCLUSIONS: In obese subjects, consumption of fructose-sweetened beverages with meals was associated with less insulin secretion, blunted diurnal leptin profiles, and increased postprandial TG concentrations compared with glucose consumption. Increases of TGs were augmented in obese subjects with insulin resistance, suggesting that fructose consumption may exacerbate an already adverse metabolic profile present in many obese subjects.

 

[Proton Soup]

Ok. I post more than 8 links re: vitamin D, the damage of HFCS, sugar and refined carbs, their links to cancer etc ... and what have I got in response ?!

Umm... let me see. Did you read the entire article, right upto the end? I'm sure you did not miss this


And this is not the only "study" sponsored by the food industry to try and do damage control to damaging evidence being revealed more and more. And all of them are available free full text

Now here you go re: the real evidence showing how bad HFCS really is.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19064538
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19381015

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19208729

actually, i don't find animal studies compelling at all. there are tons of diet supplements that have entered the market based on animal studies, and the problem is that they just don't work.

if you want to talk about conflict of interest, then you have to at least recognize that Taubes represents the goofball diet blogging industry, and everything he writes is to line his own pockets.

vitamin D is certainly interesting. i know Bill Davis found that in some of his patients that supplemental D had great effects on their lipid profiles. highly individual. maybe you should work with your doctor and see what works for you if you are hyperlipidemic.

and maybe most people should just work at not being fat and slothful, since that seems to be most peoples' problem.

 

[Proton Soup]

what the hell is this goofy crap? a hypercaloric diet that is 25% fructose? i guess it is true that goofy diets will get you goofy results.

J Clin Invest. 2009 May;119(5):1322-34. doi: 10.1172/JCI37385. Epub 2009 Apr 20.
Consuming fructose-sweetened, not glucose-sweetened, beverages increases visceral adiposity and lipids and decreases insulin sensitivity in overweight/obese humans.

Stanhope KL, Schwarz JM, Keim NL, Griffen SC, Bremer AA, Graham JL, Hatcher B, Cox CL, Dyachenko A, Zhang W, McGahan JP, Seibert A, Krauss RM, Chiu S, Schaefer EJ, Ai M, Otokozawa S, Nakajima K, Nakano T, Beysen C, Hellerstein MK, Berglund L, Havel PJ.

Department of Molecular Biosciences, UCD, Davis, California 95616, USA.

Comment in:

* J Clin Invest. 2009 May;119(5):1089-92.

Abstract

Studies in animals have documented that, compared with glucose, dietary fructose induces dyslipidemia and insulin resistance. To assess the relative effects of these dietary sugars during sustained consumption in humans, overweight and obese subjects consumed glucose- or fructose-sweetened beverages providing 25% of energy requirements for 10 weeks. Although both groups exhibited similar weight gain during the intervention, visceral adipose volume was significantly increased only in subjects consuming fructose. Fasting plasma triglyceride concentrations increased by approximately 10% during 10 weeks of glucose consumption but not after fructose consumption. In contrast, hepatic de novo lipogenesis (DNL) and the 23-hour postprandial triglyceride AUC were increased specifically during fructose consumption. Similarly, markers of altered lipid metabolism and lipoprotein remodeling, including fasting apoB, LDL, small dense LDL, oxidized LDL, and postprandial concentrations of remnant-like particle-triglyceride and -cholesterol significantly increased during fructose but not glucose consumption. In addition, fasting plasma glucose and insulin levels increased and insulin sensitivity decreased in subjects consuming fructose but not in those consuming glucose. These data suggest that dietary fructose specifically increases DNL, promotes dyslipidemia, decreases insulin sensitivity, and increases visceral adiposity in overweight/obese adults.

PMID: 19381015 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

goofy studies aside, do you know how to get rid of visceral fat? it's easy, just exercise!
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17637702

Int J Obes (Lond). 2007 Dec;31(12):1786-97. Epub 2007 Jul 17.
A dose-response relation between aerobic exercise and visceral fat reduction: systematic review of clinical trials.

Ohkawara K, Tanaka S, Miyachi M, Ishikawa-Takata K, Tabata I.

Health Promotion and Exercise Program, National Institute of Health and Nutrition, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo, Japan. ohkawara@nih.go.jp

Erratum in:

* Int J Obes (Lond). 2008 Feb;32(2):395.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: It has been suggested that exercise has preferential effects on visceral fat reduction. However, the dose-response effect remains unclear because of limited evidence from individual studies. The purpose of this study was to systematically review the current literature to establish whether reduction of visceral fat by aerobic exercise has a dose-response relationship.

METHODS: A database search was performed (PubMed, 1966-2006) with appropriate keywords to identify studies exploring the effects of aerobic exercise as a weight loss intervention on visceral fat reduction. Visceral fat reduction was expressed as the percentage of visceral fat change per week (%DeltaVF/w). The energy expenditure by aerobic exercise was expressed as Sigma (metabolic equivalents x h per week (METs x h/w)).

RESULTS: Nine randomized control trials and seven non-randomized control trials were selected. In most of the studies, the subjects performed aerobic exercise generating 10 METs x h/w or more. Among all the selected groups (582 subjects), visceral fat decreased significantly (P<0.05) in 17 groups during the intervention, but not in the other 4 groups. There was no significant relationship between METs x h/w from aerobic exercise and %DeltaVF/w in all the selected groups. However, when subjects with metabolic-related disorders were not included (425 subjects), METs x h/w from aerobic exercise had a significant relationship with %DeltaVF/w (r=-0.75). Moreover, visceral fat reduction was significantly related to weight reduction during aerobic exercise intervention, although a significant visceral fat reduction may occur without significant weight loss.

CONCLUSION: These results suggest that at least 10 METs x h/w in aerobic exercise, such as brisk walking, light jogging or stationary ergometer usage, is required for visceral fat reduction, and that there is a dose-response relationship between aerobic exercise and visceral fat reduction in obese subjects without metabolic-related disorders.

PMID: 17637702 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

 

[hamster143]

what the hell is this goofy crap? a hypercaloric diet that is 25% fructose? i guess it is true that goofy diets will get you goofy results.

I don't see the word "hypercaloric" in there. It shows that 25% of fructose in a diet have a statistically significant effect of reducing insulin sensitivity (in other words, predisposing the person to type 2 diabetes). A person on a high-carb diet with emphasis on simple carbs can easily exceed 25% and may even exceed 50%. What's goofy about that?

 

[bobze]

what the hell is this goofy crap? a hypercaloric diet that is 25% fructose? i guess it is true that goofy diets will get you goofy results.

A lot of problems with these 'fad' diets is they are based on "theory" and animal studies. Believe it or not, digestive enzymatic activity can vary greatly between species, even closely related ones.

Fructose for instance, enters the glycolytic pathway through an enzyme called fructokinase. Which has a very high Vmax and low Km. This means, it quickly phosphorylates fructose and is very active. Once phosphorylated the fructose cannot escape the cell, the bulky charge of the phosphates make lipid-insoluble.

The problem for humans, is that the next enzyme in this digestive pathway--Fructose-1-phosphate aldolase has a very high Km and very low Vmax. That is to say it's slow. Very slow.

So, fructokinase goes around burning up cellular stores of ATP, while the replenishment for ATP (continuing the digestion of fructose) is delayed. This leads to a decrease in intracellular ATP concentrations.

A funny thing happens. The decrease of ATP and increase of ADP signals the brain that you need more energy and you get hungry. Which would lead you to eat more and be counter-productive to the point of the "diet".

Interestingly, in medicine it was once thought that IV fructose maybe better than IV glucose and when given to patients they quickly developed high uric acid levels (from purine metabolism) and lactic acidosis--In severe patients fructose loading can even kill you.

People need to be less worried about "miracle" cures and one-stop diets and more worried with eating a balanced diet and getting off their behinds watching TV and being more active in their daily lives. American's (Westerner's even) extend the American dream (something for little or no effort) too far, in my opinion.

I don't see the word "hypercaloric" in there. It shows that 25% of fructose in a diet have a statistically significant effect of reducing insulin sensitivity (in other words, predisposing the person to type 2 diabetes). A person on a high-carb diet with emphasis on simple carbs can easily exceed 25% and may even exceed 50%. What's goofy about that?

Yes that's true, it will reduce your plasma insulin levels, because insulin production is dependent upon plasma glucose levels. But, as I point out above, at a trade off.

People seem to be on a hiatus against insulin these days. You're body is supposed to have and use insulin. If people would not take the lazy approach to their health (say like eating at Burger King 3 times a day) they wouldn't really need to worry about their insulin levels unless they were unlucky enough to inherit a genetic disease.

 

[hamster143]

People seem to be on a hiatus against insulin these days. You're body is supposed to have and use insulin. If people would not take the lazy approach to their health (say like eating at Burger King 3 times a day) they wouldn't really need to worry about their insulin levels

It's supposed to have insulin, sure ... but there's having insulin and there's having too much insulin. When you consistently consume a diet that contains the amount of fructose above safe levels, you develop insulin resistance, your fasting insulin and blood glucose levels go up, and at some point they get high enough that your condition is called "type 2 diabetes" with all the dangers it brings. That's exactly what causes diabetes, not eating at Burger King 3 times a day, but excess fructose. (Which is not to say that the two aren't interrelated: a single medium serving of non-diet soda at Burger King contains 40 grams of fructose.)

And then, due to the way fructose is metabolized, its regular overconsumption leads to fat deposits in the liver, which, when left unchecked by periodic fasting, lead to fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and potentially to a number of deadlier diseases such as cirrhosis and (back on the subject) liver cancer.

 

[Proton Soup]

I don't see the word "hypercaloric" in there. It shows that 25% of fructose in a diet have a statistically significant effect of reducing insulin sensitivity (in other words, predisposing the person to type 2 diabetes). A person on a high-carb diet with emphasis on simple carbs can easily exceed 25% and may even exceed 50%. What's goofy about that?

it was right here:

both groups exhibited similar weight gain during the intervention

you gain weight by eating more calories than you burn. that would be hypercaloric. if they had lost weight, it would be a hypocaloric diet.

 

[Siv]

it was right here:


you gain weight by eating more calories than you burn. that would be hypercaloric. if they had lost weight, it would be a hypocaloric diet.

If you assume what you want to conclude, then it becomes very easy, right ?

The whole point (actually one of the points) of really analyzing the real science in nutrition is that you realize that this simple calories in calories out theory is too simplistic and does not really explain anything. Plus its not true.
If your diet is high in carbs then your set point is much lower. And if your diet is high in fat/protein and low in carbs your set point is much lower.

Our body is far more complicated than the simplistic nonsense that had been spouted for so many decades.

And re: exercise, that was such a big myth that has been propogated for decades, again thanks to the so-called nutrition experts. Exercise does not help weight loss.

I am wondering whether it is worth debating with you. Not only do you not seem to know how to conduct rational debate and what is the type of evidence to look at, but your debating seems purely on opinion and confident assertions.

BTW if you have some sort of chip on your shoulder against me individually, hamster makes some good points.

 

[Siv]

I don't see the word "hypercaloric" in there. It shows that 25% of fructose in a diet have a statistically significant effect of reducing insulin sensitivity (in other words, predisposing the person to type 2 diabetes). A person on a high-carb diet with emphasis on simple carbs can easily exceed 25% and may even exceed 50%. What's goofy about that?

Very true. Even fructose can easily exceed 25%. Easily.
Take a typical American diet. 1 pizza, 2 burgers, 5 diet sodas and maybe some processed chips like Lays. Do you know how much HFCS that is ?? Do the math.

The food and beverage industry has so much going for it, with the corn subsidies making HFCS such a big thing, that they are trying to do all that they can to discredit the evidence pouring in.

Forget the carb:fat ratio, if you just avoid all the processed crap available in dept stores and fast food restaurants today, I can bet my savings that cancer incidence will reduce drastically.

 

[Siv]

Some more interesting articles.

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1914857,00.html

http://nymag.com/news/sports/38001/

Its surprising how we have accepted so many things as gospel without a shred of evidence.

 

[hamster143]

Take a typical American diet. 1 pizza, 2 burgers, 5 diet sodas and maybe some processed chips like Lays. Do you know how much HFCS that is ?? Do the math.

Um, zero? Or close to. Diet sodas don't contain any HFCS for sure. (Whether it's safe to consume that much aspartame, that's a different story). Domino's medium-sized "American Favorite Feast" pizza on deep dish crust is less than 4% simple sugars by weight; trust me, I just checked. A Big Mac contains 5 g of fructose. Lay's chips are also pretty much sugar free.

Bad example. :)

On the other hand, non-diet sodas, candies, cookies, donuts - that's where HFCS really gets pouring in. A single donut is typically 20 g or more of simple sugars. It's really hard to find healthy breakfast cereals: with a few exceptions, most of them are laced with HFCS (especially destructive, since they are marketed toward children). Sweetened Starbucks coffees are notorious about that, you can sometimes exceed 50 g in a single cup.

 

[Siv]

Oops, sorry. Meant ordinary sodas, the word diet was typed by mistake (sign o' the times, huh?!).

 

[Studiot]

Has anyone in this debate read any of

'The Saccharine Disease' by Cleave

or

'Tired or Toxic?' by Sherry Rogers

or

'Not on the Label' by Felicity Lawrence

 

[Siv]

Has anyone in this debate read any of

'The Saccharine Disease' by Cleave

Um ... have you read the posts? That sugar and refined carbs are responsible for many of our current diseases/ailments is something that is definitely being discussed.

 

[russ_watters]

Some more interesting articles.

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1914857,00.html

http://nymag.com/news/sports/38001/

Its surprising how we have accepted so many things as gospel without a shred of evidence.

Those are really terrrible articles. They take something that is true (and blindingly obvious) and twist it around to imply - completely incorrectly - that it's false, for the sake of sucking you into reading the article. Time does that all the time and IIRC, they got a huge amount of negative feedback for that article.

Exercise alone will make you lose weight.

That statement is true. It has to be. The human body's weight gain or loss is determined by the caloric balance: calories in - calories out = calories stored. If you increase the calories out while maintaining the calories in, you lose weight. Period.

What they are doing in those articles is applying faulty logic - and more importantly, faulty reading comprehension - to the thing that makes weight loss by exercise alone hard: when you exercise, your body demands more calories, so it is hard to not eat more. But look again at the statement in bold. Where in there does it addresses eating? It doesn't. It assumes all other factors including eating are held constant. So saying that the statement is wrong because exercise leads people to eat more is bad logic and bad reading comprehension.

The correct message that should be transmitted here is this: Exercise alone will cause you to lose weight, but it will cause you to want to eat more, so you have to be vigilant in maintaining your caloric intake. This really should not be hard to grasp, nor to do as long as you make yourself conscious of it. Eating habits are just that - habits. You should be able to control your caloric intake by eating what you normally do because you know what you normally eat. Ie, if you used to eat the "medium" extra value meal and now you're eating the "supersize", you're eating more. Obviously, this will cut into the weight loss, so you shouldn't do it.

Duh.

Here's a 5-part rebuttal:

The recent August 9th 2009 cover story from Time Magazine, "Why Exercise Won't Make You Thin" (Cloud, 2009) may be one of the most poorly researched and misrepresented articles about exercise and fitness. Not only did the author John Cloud misinterpret much of the exercise and health science literature--he has plenty of other articles where his seemingly lack of science and health knowledge is moot--and wrote an article that could potentially damage the public if they follow his misinformed advice, but Time Magazine has been completely irresponsible in publishing this article without seemingly proper fact checking. Cloud begins the article by touting his bitterness towards exercise and finds studies which seem to rationalize his disregard for proper exercise and nutrition. Cloud seems to lack comprehension in science, health, and fitness to accurately convey truthful information. The inaccurate and misleading conclusions he draws may make the metabolic syndrome (obesity, diabetes, heart disease, etc...) epidemic even worse if people believe his story.

http://www.examiner.com/diets-and-e...-why-exercise-won-t-make-you-thin-part-1-of-5

 

[Studiot]

Um ... have you read the posts?

That sort of response makes me sorry I bothered to post at all.

Yes I checked electronically and according to my browser ,my post was the first mention of Dr Cleave in this thread.

 

[mugaliens]

I am not so sure. Anthropologists who studied tribes untouched by the modern Western fast and processed food disease often did not find evidence for these.

References, please.

And given that Hippocrates described several cancers a couple thousand years ago (Moss, Ralph W. (2004). "http://www.cancerdecisions.com/speeches/galen1989.html" "), cancer is most certainly not caused by "the modern Western fast and processed food." Is there an increase caused by our diets? Possibly, although there are so many other factors out there including significantly changed levels of exercise and dietary composition, as well as exposure to sun, radiation, and man-made toxins, that's it's very difficult to definitively state cancers are due to x, y, or z.

peaking of dentists, anyone read Weston Price's work ? I don't mean the current WAPF, but the original works of Weston Price. Interesting stuff indeed.

I have Vols I & II of a rather thick medical text 1880's medical text which I find fascinating, both in terms of how much remains valid today, as well as how much was little more than heresay or anecdotal. They're in long-term storage, however. Otherwise, I'd share some tidbits!

 

[Siv]

That sort of response makes me sorry I bothered to post at all.

Yes I checked electronically and according to my browser ,my post was the first mention of Dr Cleave in this thread.

Thats not what you asked, specifically about Dr Cleave.

What you did was post 3 books and asked if anyone had read them. The first book (which I referenced while replying) was one about the modern evils of refined carbs and sugar, which we have extensively discussed.

 

[Proton Soup]

Some more interesting articles.

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1914857,00.html

http://nymag.com/news/sports/38001/

Its surprising how we have accepted so many things as gospel without a shred of evidence.

good grief. and nowhere above did i post that exercise alone would make you thin. the points were simply this, that a surplus of calories will be stored as some kind of weight (often fat, but can also be muscle (which is almost always accompanied by fat, too, but let's not get into that)), and that exercise will burn visceral fat preferentially. visceral fat acts as more of a short-term storage depot. it's rather easy to get rid of, especially for a *ahem* paleo guy that actually gets up off his rump to go find food instead of just driving to Publix.

for someone so concerned about gospels, it is a bit amusing to see you line up for the Flavor-Aid. anyhoo, i think i'll leave you to your delusions.