Active Low-Carber Forums
Atkins diet and low carb discussion provided free for information only, not as medical advice.
Home Plans Tips Recipes Tools Stories Studies Products
Active Low-Carber Forums
A sugar-free zone


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!

Go Back   Active Low-Carber Forums > Main Low-Carb Diets Forums & Support > Low-Carb Studies & Research / Media Watch > LC Research/Media
User Name
Password
Register FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   ^
Old Wed, May-10-17, 10:03
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is online now
Senior Member
Posts: 11,226
 
Plan: ketosis/IF
Stats: 190/158/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 89%
Location: Ontario
Default Sugar bad

Quote:
High-fat foods are often the primary target when fighting obesity, but sugar-laden "diet" foods could be contributing to unwanted weight gain as well, according to a new study from the University of Georgia.

Researchers found that rats fed a diet high in sugar but low in fat -- meant to imitate many popular diet foods -- increased body fat mass when compared to rats fed a balanced rodent diet. The high-sugar diet induced a host of other problems, including liver damage and brain inflammation.

"Most so-called diet products containing low or no fat have an increased amount of sugar and are camouflaged under fancy names, giving the impression that they are healthy, but the reality is that those foods may damage the liver and lead to obesity as well," said the study's principal investigator, Krzysztof Czaja, an associate professor of veterinary biosciences and diagnostic imaging in UGA's College of Veterinary Medicine.

"What's really troubling in our findings is that the rats consuming high-sugar, low-fat diets didn't consume significantly more calories than the rats fed a balanced diet," Czaja said. "Our research shows that in rats fed a low-fat, high-sugar diet, the efficiency of generating body fat is more than twice as high -- in other words, rats consuming low-fat high-sugar diets need less than half the number of calories to generate the same amount of body fat."

Over a four-week period, researchers monitored body weight, caloric intake, body composition and fecal samples in three groups of rats. One group of test subjects consumed a diet high in fat and sugar, another group was fed a low-fat, high-sugar diet and a third group was given a balanced or "normal" diet.

Both the low-fat, high-sugar and high-fat, high-sugar groups displayed an increase in liver fat and significant increases in body weight and body fat when compared to the balanced diet group. Liver fat accumulation was significant in the high-sugar, low-fat group, which Czaja said "is a very dangerous situation, because the liver accumulating more fat mimics the effect of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease."

Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease is caused by fat buildup in the liver, and serious forms of the disease can result in liver damage comparable to that caused by heavy alcohol use.

The unbalanced diets also induced chronic inflammation in the intestinal tract and brain. Former studies in rats conducted by Czaja have shown that brain inflammation alters gut-brain communication by damaging the vagus nerve, which controls sensory signals, including the brain's ability to determine when one is full.

"The brain changes resulting from these unbalanced diets seem to be long term, and it is still not known if they are reversible by balanced diets," Czaja said.

This study expands upon the researchers' previous work that determined high-fat diets alter the gut microbiome, the collection of bacteria, viruses and other microbes that live in the digestive tract. The recent study found that the unbalanced diets decreased the microbiome's bacterial diversity, and the low-fat, high-sugar diet increased gut bacteria that are associated with liver damage.


https://www.sciencedaily.com/releas...70425140210.htm
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2   ^
Old Wed, May-10-17, 14:42
Squarecube's Avatar
Squarecube Squarecube is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 837
 
Plan: atkins/paleo/IF
Stats: 186.5/159.0/160 Male 5' 11"
BF:
Progress: 104%
Location: NYC
Default

Rats. I hate that they are using the term "unbalanced diet"
Reply With Quote
  #3   ^
Old Wed, May-10-17, 17:03
WereBear's Avatar
WereBear WereBear is offline
Posts: 9,915
 
Plan: Epi-Paleo/IF
Stats: 220/162/150 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 83%
Location: USA
Default

Quote:
"What's really troubling in our findings is that the rats consuming high-sugar, low-fat diets didn't consume significantly more calories than the rats fed a balanced diet," Czaja said. "Our research shows that in rats fed a low-fat, high-sugar diet, the efficiency of generating body fat is more than twice as high -- in other words, rats consuming low-fat high-sugar diets need less than half the number of calories to generate the same amount of body fat."


UNpossible! I thought CICO was the law of physics or something!
Reply With Quote
  #4   ^
Old Wed, May-10-17, 17:56
Calianna's Avatar
Calianna Calianna is online now
Senior Member
Posts: 1,011
 
Plan: Atkins-ish (hypoglycemia)
Stats: 000/000/000 Female 63
BF:
Progress: 50%
Default

At least it's showing that low fat, which is inherently high in sugar to make up for the lack of fat, causes absolutely the worst weight gain, as well as fatty liver.

I'm expect this study to be used only to warn people off added sugars though.
Reply With Quote
  #5   ^
Old Thu, May-11-17, 15:30
Merpig's Avatar
Merpig Merpig is offline
Posts: 6,100
 
Plan: IF/Fung IDM/Potato Hack?
Stats: 375/272.6/175 Female 66 inches
BF:
Progress: 51%
Location: NE Florida
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WereBear
UNpossible! I thought CICO was the law of physics or something!
HaHa! You beat me to the punch. I was about to post that same thing. This paragraph should be engraved in gold and sent to every CICO fanatic we could think of.
Reply With Quote
  #6   ^
Old Fri, May-12-17, 15:37
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is online now
Senior Member
Posts: 11,226
 
Plan: ketosis/IF
Stats: 190/158/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 89%
Location: Ontario
Default

The astounding thing is that Czaja bothered to be troubled about calories not seeming to be the causative factor. This sort of thing isn't even a little bit rare.

CICO--even if it were true, it wouldn't be because a calorie is a calorie, it would be because the organism in question had the molecular machinery/coordinated system to make things come out even. We know in the extremes that there are individuals lacking this or that enzyme etc. that reduces the ability to metabolize glucose, fat, or various aminos, or increases it. Assuming that there aren't somewhere between the extremes variations in individual metabolism that make one or the other nutrient more or less fattening seems faulty. Those of us who don't have obviously compromised metabolisms-- we're all identical? Doesn't seem like the common sense that it's supposed to be.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 15:23.


Copyright © 2000-2017 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.