Fri, Jan-20-17, 07:11
|
 |
Senior Member
Posts: 15,075
|
|
Plan: mostly milkfat
Stats: 190/152.4/154
BF:
Progress: 104%
Location: Ontario
|
|
glucose vs. fructose
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releas...70119120447.htm
Quote:
The type of sugar you eat -- and not just calorie count -- may determine your risk for chronic disease. A new study is the first of its kind to compare the effects of two types of sugar on metabolic and vascular function. The paper is published ahead of print in the American Journal of Physiology -- Heart and Circulatory Physiology.
Female rats were given a liquid solution of either glucose (a form of sugar found naturally in the body after carbohydrates are broken down) or fructose (sugar found in fruit and fruit juices) in addition to their normal diet of solid food. The rats received the sweetened solutions for eight weeks, roughly equivalent to a person eating large amounts of sugar for six years. The sugar-fed rats were compared with a control group that received plain drinking water in addition to their food supply.
Researchers found that although both sugar-fed groups consumed more calories than the control group, the total calorie intake of the glucose-fed rats was higher than the rats that were given fructose. Another surprising observation was that "despite this difference, only the fructose group exhibited a significant increase in final body weight," wrote the research team.
In addition to higher weight gain, the fructose group showed more markers of vascular disease and liver damage than the glucose group. These included high triglycerides, increased liver weight, decreased fat burning in the liver (a factor that can contribute to fatty liver) and impaired relaxation of the aorta, which can affect blood pressure.
These findings suggest that an increase in the amount of calories consumed due to sweeteners is not the only factor involved in long-term health risks. The type of sugar may also play a role in increasing risk factors for heart disease, diabetes and other chronic diseases.
|
You might think from this part
Quote:
|
Another surprising observation was that "despite this difference, only the fructose group exhibited a significant increase in final body weight," wrote the research team.
|
that the animals got fatter, but this wasn't really the case. Bigger isn't always fatter.
From the study itself;
Quote:
Despite this difference, only the fructose group
exhibited a significant increase in final body weight (by 1.1-fold). Due to the increase in
body weight, organ weights were normalized to femur length, which was not altered by
sugar supplementation. Liver weight was increased only by fructose supplementation
(by 1.4-fold vs control, and 1.3-fold vs glucose-fed rats), whereas adipose tissue weight
was significantly increased in both sugar-supplemented groups (by 5.6-fold in the
glucose group and 5.2-fold in the fructose group).
|
Not fatter, just sicker. Dropping fructose is a good idea--but if the solution is coca cola made with glucose instead of fructose, we might just get healthier people, but not necessarily leaner.
http://ajpheart.physiology.org/cont...9.2016.full.pdf
|