fructose = toxic & addictive foods = chronicly high insulin levels = obesity : Nutrition : Active Low-Carber Forums

View Full Version : fructose = toxic & addictive foods = chronicly high insulin levels = obesity

Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums

Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

Mon, Aug-14-06, 17:16

http://news.scotsman.com/scitech.cfm?id=1172292006

Children doomed to obesity by 'toxic, addictive' fast-food
LYNDSAY MOSS HEALTH CORRESPONDENT WESTERN diets of "addictive"
foods, high in calories and low in fibre, are causing hormonal
imbalances that encourage children to overeat, researchers
said yesterday.

Youngsters and their parents have faced a barrage of blame
when it comes to the current childhood obesity epidemic.

But Professor Robert Lustig, from the University of
California, said changes in manufacturing processes were
making food "toxic" and "addictive", leading to obesity.

Scotland, along with the rest of the UK, faces a growing
health timebomb as more and more youngsters become obese.

Figures show that a third of 12-year-olds in Scotland are
overweight and a fifth are obese.

The latest study said food manufacturing processes had created
a "toxic environment" that dooms children to being overweight.

Prof Lustig said that the way in which food was now processed,
which had changed significantly in the last 30 years, had
created an environment in which foods were essentially
addictive due to their effect on the hormone insulin.

"In particular, fructose [sugar] - too much - and fibre - not
enough - appear to be cornerstones of the obesity epidemic
through their effects on insulin," he said.

Prof Lustig said it was known that insulin acted on the brain
to encourage eating in two ways.

Insulin blocks the signals that travel from the body's fat
stores to the brain by suppressing the effectiveness of
another hormone, leptin - leading to increased eating and
decreased activity.

The hormone also promotes the signal that seeks the reward of
eating, carried by the chemical dopamine which makes people
want to eat to get the pleasurable dopamine "rush".

When leptin is suppressed by the effects of insulin caused by
high-sugar, low-fibre diets, it decreases levels of activity
and increases appetite - known as leptin resistance.

Prof Lustig said that sugar was now added to foods that never
used to contained sugar, and meanwhile fibre was removed. Both
were factors which promoted insulin production and made foods
addictive, he said.

He said children could not be blamed or expected to take
personal responsibility for their diets when they were offered
cheaply prepared fast-foods full of sugar and devoid of fibre.

"The concept of personal responsibility is not tenable. No
child chooses to be obese.

"Furthermore, young children are not responsible for food
choices at home or at school, and it can hardly be said that
pre-school children, in whom obesity is rampant, are in a
position to accept personal responsibility," Prof Lustig said.

The study was published in the journal Nature Clinical
Practice Endocrinology and Metabolism.

Caroline Swain, executive director of the charity Weight
Concern, said that children needed to be encouraged to make
healthy choices in their diet.

"It is clear that if you give a child the option of eating
fatty, sugary foods then they will choose it.

"Parents and schools need to offer proper healthy choices,
not just the stark choice between a bun and a carrot," Ms
Swain said.

A spokeswoman for the Food and Drink Federation - the voice of
the UK food and drink manufacturing industry - said: "The
industry has recognised that it has a part to play in
combating obesity.

"In 2004 we launched a food and health manifesto, which
included providing more informative food labelling.

"What we need to look at, and we need to help people look at,
is the whole diet.

"There is not one single food that is bad for you. It is about
encouraging people to have a balanced diet to suit their
needs," the spokeswoman said.

**********

Hmmmm..... And I've been told repeatedly about how it is all
about fats and calories......

TC

outsor

Mon, Aug-14-06, 17:16

"Hmmmm..... And I've been told repeatedly about how it is all
about fats and calories......"

What is "it"?

Mon, Aug-14-06, 17:16

outsor@citynet.com wrote:
> "Hmmmm..... And I've been told repeatedly about how it is
> all about fats and calories......"
>
> What is "it"?

Weight management. D'uh!

outsor

Tue, Aug-15-06, 06:16

"> "Hmmmm..... And I've been told repeatedly about how it is
all about fats
> and calories......"
>
> What is "it"?

Weight management. D'uh!"

It is about calories, the article was about how some foods
change the usual feedback process that signals having
consumed enough. "Toxic" and "addictive" don't apply in this
as any food can be toxic when used in excess and no foods
are addictive as that term is clinically defined. Humans
have a genetic disposition to crave salt and fat, but that
is still not addictive but does explain why both are often
in snack foods.

Tue, Aug-15-06, 17:17

outsor@citynet.net wrote:
> "> "Hmmmm..... And I've been told repeatedly about how it is
> all about fats
> > and calories......"
> >
> > What is "it"?
>
> Weight management. D'uh!"
>
> It is about calories, the article was about how some foods
> change the usual feedback process that signals having
> consumed enough.

What is the usual feedback process that signals having
consumed enough *calories* specifically? Huh?

> "Toxic" and "addictive" don't apply in this as any food can
> be toxic when used in excess and no foods are addictive as
> that term is clinically defined.

A new chemically re-structured set of substances, even when
refined and extracted from foods, can indeed be toxic and
addictive. It is no longer what the body recognises as food.
MSG is a good example, high fructose corn syrup as well. Same
with Ultra High Temp Pasteurized milk where the protein
molecules are de-natured to the point of no longer being
recognizable by your metabolic system. Grains that are refined
into starches and extruded at very high temperatures into RTE
cereals are no longer food but toxic, de-natured substances
containing harmfully warped and destroyed protein molecules.

There is always a point where you can turn real food into
toxic substances. And High Fructose Corn Syrup is both toxic
and addictive. It is not a food anymore, it is a chemical made
from a food source. And it is in almost every manufactured
food available.

Real food is not manufactured, it is grown.

> Humans have a genetic disposition to crave salt and fat, but
> that is still not addictive but does explain why both are
> often in snack foods.

Cravings are needs for nutrients. Essential fatty acids and
salts are needed nutrients. These are *natural* cravings. They
exist to help the species survive and thrive.

Addictions show themselves as *un-natural* cravings for things
that are not essential for life. Like cravings for cigarettes,
heroin, meth, oxy-contin, coke, Coke, sugar, and high fructose
corn syrup. They exist because of chemical addictions which,
in the end, severely limits our ability to survive and thrive
as a species.

TC

outsor

Tue, Aug-15-06, 17:17

"Some good reading on high fructose corn syrup:"

I was reading articles about corn syrup a year or more ago and
its effect on hungar feedback activity. That is not the point,
your naive commentary on an article you did not read is. I did
not speak in favor of using corn syrup, all my responses were
taken up with correcting your vacuous lifestyle food cult
agenda driven spin and propaganda. You confuse having a good
response with being able to make a response, any response,
regardless of its validity, such is the level of your grasp of
the science involved. Unless you have read the article, you
still don't know about the hunger feedback loops involved but
still you prsist in massaging the keyboard as though it alone
could substitute for the facts.

outsor

Tue, Aug-15-06, 17:17

"What is the usual feedback process that signals having
consumed enough *calories* specifically? Huh?"

It was in the article, did you read it? Past track record says
no, but you liked the headline without grasping the science
discussed.

"There is always a point where you can turn real food into
toxic substances. And High Fructose Corn Syrup is both toxic
and addictive. It is not a food anymore, it is a chemical made
from a food source. And it is in almost every manufactured
food available.

Real food is not manufactured, it is grown."

A difference without a distinction is born of such simple
minded word play. All the contents of corn syrup can be found
in an apple or orange or pear or, well the list is endless. It
is the ratio of fructose to glucose in it that is different
and when you read the article you will know how this works
with eating feedback. Such sugars are the basic energy sources
of our bodies and for the majority of all creatures and other
life forms.

"Cravings are needs for nutrients. Essential fatty acids and
salts are needed nutrients. These are *natural* cravings. They
exist to help the species survive and thrive."

Only half right, salt and fat are on average somewhat rare in
the environment and the craving to have them an adaptation to
ensure they are sought.

"Addictions show themselves as *un-natural* cravings for
things that are not essential for life. Like cravings for
cigarettes, heroin, meth, oxy-contin, coke, Coke, sugar, and
high fructose corn syrup. They exist because of chemical
addictions which, in the end, severely limits our ability to
survive and thrive as a species."

Poppy cock word play, corn syrup does not meet the definition
clinically as an addictive supstance any more then the fat
found in meat does, for which there is a real genetic basis
for a craving. Only more unscientific word play from the
lifestyle food cult addicts seeking a "fix" by getting others
to agree and confirm their lifestyle choices.

Tue, Aug-15-06, 17:17

outsor@citynet.net wrote:
> "What is the usual feedback process that signals having
> consumed enough *calories* specifically? Huh?"
>
> It was in the article, did you read it? Past track record
> says no, but you liked the headline without grasping the
> science discussed.

Actually it was not in the article. Nor is it in any bio-chem
textbook. There is no feedback mechanism that reacts directly
on calories, period. the body does not measure the energy
values of foods nor does it recognize an excess or a
deficiency of available energy.

>
> "There is always a point where you can turn real food into
> toxic substances. And High Fructose Corn Syrup is both toxic
> and addictive. It is not a food anymore, it is a chemical
> made from a food source. And it is in almost every
> manufactured food available.
>
> Real food is not manufactured, it is grown."
>
> A difference without a distinction is born of such simple
> minded word play. All the contents of corn syrup can be
> found in an apple or orange or pear or, well the list is
> endless. It is the ratio of fructose to glucose in it that
> is different and when you read the article you will know how
> this works with eating feedback. Such sugars are the basic
> energy sources of our bodies and for the majority of all
> creatures and other life forms.

You are choosing to interpret simple concepts to fit your
argument. And you are showing some serious lack of
sophistication in your ability to understand the chemistry.

It is not just the ratio that is different in hfcs. It is the
fact that they have been chemically broken down to their
simplest molecular structures then reassembled in a mixture
which the body does not recognize as it normally would. The
fructose and glucose in fruits and other foods come in larger
more complex molecules and as complex compounds, which means
thay are bonded together in a fashion that the body can
recognize as a food and can metabolise.

Fructose and glucose from whole fresh foods eaten feash and
whole is very familiar to our metabolism and causes no problem
when eaten in moderation. Fructose and glucose refined,
separated, processed, filtered, and broken down with enzymes
and chemical processes then re-combined in vats is a different
substance altogether and causes all kinds of problems for us.

It is that simple a concept. read it carefully and understand
what I am saying before you respond with more stupidity.

>
> "Cravings are needs for nutrients. Essential fatty acids and
> salts are needed nutrients. These are *natural* cravings.
> They exist to help the species survive and thrive."
>
> Only half right, salt and fat are on average somewhat rare
> in the environment and the craving to have them an
> adaptation to ensure they are sought.

Hunters, thruout the ages have preferred the larger older more
mature animals because of their large stores of fat. Gatherers
have sought out higher fat bugs and nuts. A source of salt has
alway been a valued asset to communities.

It is sugar that is new in the amounts being eaten today. And
the amounts of refined carbs that is entirely new in the last
century. And the vegetable oils that are new. Especially the
hydrogenated processed vegetable oils.

For time immemorial, we have eaten a high animal fat diet
with as much salt as we could get our hands on. It is the
sugars, the refined grains, and the vegetable oils that are
new and causing the health and obesity problems, especially
the last 30 years.

>
> "Addictions show themselves as *un-natural* cravings for
> things that are not essential for life. Like cravings for
> cigarettes, heroin, meth, oxy-contin, coke, Coke, sugar, and
> high fructose corn syrup. They exist because of chemical
> addictions which, in the end, severely limits our ability to
> survive and thrive as a species."
>
> Poppy cock word play, corn syrup does not meet the
> definition clinically as an addictive supstance any more
> then the fat found in meat does, for which there is a real
> genetic basis for a craving. Only more unscientific word
> play from the lifestyle food cult addicts seeking a "fix" by
> getting others to agree and confirm their lifestyle choices.

High fructose corn syrup, jackass. It is more a chemical
concoction than it is a food. And an addictive and toxic
substance. I suggest you do some research on how hfcs is
produced and manufactured, then research its effects on
health. Pretty scary stuff that even you can't deny, hide,
ignore, or sweep under the carpet.

TC

Tue, Aug-15-06, 17:17

Wed, Aug-16-06, 17:16

outsor@citynet.net wrote:
> "Some good reading on high fructose corn syrup:"
>
> I was reading articles about corn syrup a year or more ago
> and its effect on hungar feedback activity. That is not the
> point, your naive commentary on an article you did not read
> is. I did not speak in favor of using corn syrup, all my
> responses were taken up with correcting your vacuous
> lifestyle food cult agenda driven spin and propaganda. You
> confuse having a good response with being able to make a
> response, any response, regardless of its validity, such is
> the level of your grasp of the science involved. Unless you
> have read the article, you still don't know about the
> hunger feedback loops involved but still you prsist in
> massaging the keyboard as though it alone could substitute
> for the facts.

I'll dumb it down a bit for you so you can understand what was
said. Here is a quote from the article that you would have
seen had you actually read and understood the article:

***
"Prof Lustig said that the way in which food was now
processed, which had changed significantly in the last 30
years, had created an environment in which foods were
essentially addictive due to their effect on the hormone
insulin.

"In particular, fructose [sugar] - too much - and fibre - not
enough - appear to be cornerstones of the obesity epidemic
through their effects

on insulin," he said.

Prof Lustig said it was known that insulin acted on the brain
to encourage eating in two ways.

Insulin blocks the signals that travel from the body's fat
stores to the brain by suppressing the effectiveness of
another hormone, leptin -

leading to increased eating and decreased activity.

The hormone also promotes the signal that seeks the reward of
eating, carried by the chemical dopamine which makes people
want to eat to get the pleasurable dopamine "rush".

When leptin is suppressed by the effects of insulin caused by
high-sugar, low-fibre diets, it decreases levels of activity
and increases appetite - known as leptin resistance.

Prof Lustig said that sugar was now added to foods that never
used to contained sugar, and meanwhile fibre was removed. Both
were factors which promoted insulin production and made foods
addictive, he said."
***

He was speaking of sugars added to foods and specifically of
HFCS and its effects on humans. ie. obesity. My comment was:

"Hmmmm..... And I've been told repeatedly about how it is all
about fats and calories...... "

Which means that for the last 100 to 150 years, and continuing
right to this day, we've been brainwashed to believe that
weight gain was related singularly and directly to excess
consumption of fats and fat calories. And to this day,
doctors, nutritionists and weight loss "experts" will
invariably tell you to cut fats without any regard whatsoever
to the gallons of soda and kilos of HFCS in foods that is
consumed every day.

The simple upshot is that sugars and especially HFCS are much
more a factor in todays obesity epidemics than are fats in
general. This is undeniable.

Our consumption of fats has actually diminished by about 10%
since 1970 and our consumption of carbs has increased by about
12% in the same timeframe.

Look, if you are too dense and uneducated to figure out and
understand what is being said, then sit there quietly and
politely ask questions or go do some research on your own.
Eventually you will be up to speed. At that point you can
join the discussion like a reasonable adult. Until then,
shut the f up.

TC

Larry Hoov

Wed, Aug-16-06, 17:16

<outsor@citynet.net> wrote in message
news:44e236ee$0$22752$1c4686b2@selenium.club.cc.cmu.edu...
> "Some good reading on high fructose corn syrup:"
>
> I was reading articles about corn syrup a year or more ago
> and its effect on hungar feedback activity. That is not the
> point, your naive commentary on an article you did not read
> is. I did not speak in favor of using corn syrup, all my
> responses were taken up with correcting your vacuous
> lifestyle food cult agenda driven spin and propaganda. You
> confuse having a good response with being able to make a
> response, any response, regardless of its validity, such is
> the level of your grasp of the science involved. Unless you
> have read the article, you still don't know about the
> hunger feedback loops involved but still you prsist in
> massaging the keyboard as though it alone could substitute
> for the facts.

I do appreciate the frustrations that can creep into
keyboard debates, but ad hominem responses do not begin to
address the loss of understanding underlying this
communication failure. In reading both your messages, I
cannot find support for your assertion that TC was spouting
propaganda. HFCS sweetener use is very highly correlated
with trends in body weight. No other variable, including
total fat intake, saturated fat intake, trans fat intake, or
total calorie intake, is so highly correlated to obesity.
Sorry, no pat references for those assertions. Just my own
personal summary of available research.

There is another mechanism, apart from this insulin-dependent
one, which also contributes to the increases seen in obesity:
de novo lipogenesis. Driven by consumption of simple and
complex carbs, the liver produces fatty acids from carbs.
Those fatty acids just happen to be the preferred storage fats
for adipocytes. In turn, the adipocytes begin to secrete
hormones and other modulators, further complicating the
insulin/leptin balancing act, and keeping the liver primed for
fat production. Seasonal variability in food sources could
well have driven such an evolutionary adapatation, but post
hoc rationalization is far from foolproof. Gorging on fall
sugars and starches, just prior to a winter of possible
starvation, would certainly favor those individuals who could
quickly "put on the fat".

Just because HCFS arises from agriculture, with corn surely a
natural product thereof, does not preclude its being toxic nor
addictive. Both toxicity and addictiveness depend on dose, and
increasing HCFS dose is certainly an issue arising from modern
industrial foods.

Lar

outsor

Thu, Aug-17-06, 17:15

"I'll dumb it down a bit for you so you can understand what
was said. Here is a quote from the article that you would have
seen had you actually read and understood the article:"

Good, you finally read the article past the headline. Corn
syrup does not exist in nature per sey but all of its contents
are widely found,ie. fructose and glucose. It is the isolation
and ratio of these that is different not what chemicals they
are. Fructose alone messes up the feedback loops regardless of
source. An apple or any other fruit has fructose. The brain
doesn't register fructose in the same way it does glucose, the
latter does provide the feedback loops. Thus the higher
fructose to glucose ratio of corn syrup allows one to consume
many many excess calories without the "had enough" feedback
kicking in to restrict intake. Insulin is one of many
substances part of that feedback.

Fructose, from an apple or anywhere else, doesn't match the
technical definition of being addictive except in that the
feedback loop is missing so additional intake is not
moderated, notwithstanding the florid of such languageuse .
Bty, this is old news from a year or longer ago, good to see
you are now catching up.

Thu, Aug-17-06, 17:15

outsor@citynet.net wrote:
> "I'll dumb it down a bit for you so you can understand what
> was said. Here is a quote from the article that you would
> have seen had you actually read and understood the article:"
>
> Good, you finally read the article past the headline. Corn
> syrup does not exist in nature per sey but all of its
> contents are widely found,ie. fructose and glucose. It is
> the isolation and ratio of these that is different not what
> chemicals they are. Fructose alone messes up the feedback
> loops regardless of source. An apple or any other fruit has
> fructose. The brain doesn't register fructose in the same
> way it does glucose, the latter does provide the feedback
> loops. Thus the higher fructose to glucose ratio of corn
> syrup allows one to consume many many excess calories
> without the "had enough" feedback kicking in to restrict
> intake. Insulin is one of many substances part of that
> feedback.
>
> Fructose, from an apple or anywhere else, doesn't match the
> technical definition of being addictive except in that the
> feedback loop is missing so additional intake is not
> moderated, notwithstanding the florid of such languageuse .
> Bty, this is old news from a year or longer ago, good to see
> you are now catching up.

Now you are arguing semantics on points that aren't relevant
to the either the gist or the specifics of either the article
or my comments.

TC