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
FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   ^
Old Thu, Mar-18-21, 06:06
Demi's Avatar
Demi Demi is offline
Posts: 23,489
 
Plan: Low Carb
Stats: 217/203/160 Female 5'10"
BF:
Progress: 25%
Location: UK
Default Fat Production Doubled by Sugar Consumption

Quote:
Fat Production Doubled by Sugar Consumption

Too much sugar is unhealthy – that we know, but it’s not just down to the many calories. Even moderate amounts of added fructose and sucrose double the body’s own fat production in the liver, researchers from the University of Zurich have shown. In the long term, this contributes to the development of diabetes or a fatty liver.

Sugar is added to many common foodstuffs, and people in Switzerland consume more than 100 grams of it every day. The high calorie content of sugar causes excessive weight and obesity, and the associated diseases. But does too much sugar have any other harmful effects if consumed regularly? And if so, which sugars in particular?

Even moderate amounts of sugar increase fat synthesis

Researchers at the University of Zurich (UZH) and the University Hospital Zurich (USZ) have been investigating these questions. Compared to previous studies, which mainly examined the consumption of very high amounts of sugar, their results show that even moderate amounts lead to a change in the metabolism of test participants. “Eighty grams of sugar daily, which is equivalent to about 0,8 liters of a normal soft drink, boosts fat production in the liver. And the overactive fat production continues for a longer period of time, even if no more sugar is consumed,” says study leader Philipp Gerber of the Department of Endocrinology, Diabetology and Clinical Nutrition.

Ninety-four healthy young men took part in the study. Every day for a period of seven weeks, they consumed a drink sweetened with different types of sugar, while the control group did not. The drinks contained either fructose, glucose or sucrose (table sugar which is a combination of fructose and glucose). The researchers then used tracers (labeled substances that can be traced as they move through the body) to analyze the effect of the sugary drinks on the lipid metabolism.

Fructose and sucrose double fat production beyond food intake

Overall, the participants did not consume more calories than before the study, as the sugary drink increased satiety and they therefore reduced their calorie intake from other sources. Nevertheless, the researchers observed that fructose has a negative effect: “The body’s own fat production in the liver was twice as high in the fructose group as in the glucose group or the control group – and this was still the case more than twelve hours after the last meal or sugar consumption,” says Gerber. Particularly surprising was that the sugar we most commonly consume, sucrose, boosted fat synthesis slightly more than the same amount of fructose. Until now, it was thought that fructose was most likely to cause such changes.

Development of fatty liver or diabetes more likely

Increased fat production in the liver is a significant first step in the development of common diseases such as fatty liver and type-2 diabetes. From a health perspective, the World Health Organization recommends limiting daily sugar consumption to around 50 grams or, even better, 25 grams. “But we are far off that mark in Switzerland,” says Philipp Gerber. “Our results are a critical step in researching the harmful effects of added sugars and will be very significant for future dietary recommendations.”

Reference
Geidl-Flueck B et al. Fructose- and sucrose- but not glucose-sweetened beverages promote hepatic de novo lipogenesis: A randomized controlled trial. J Hepatol, March 05, 202.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhep.2021.02.027


https://www.technologynetworks.com/...sumption-346750
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2   ^
Old Thu, Mar-18-21, 06:40
Calianna's Avatar
Calianna Calianna is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,517
 
Plan: Atkins-ish (hypoglycemia)
Stats: 000/000/000 Female 63
BF:
Progress: 50%
Default

Quote:
Too much sugar is unhealthy – that we know, but it’s not just down to the many calories.

Has anyone else noticed that this is a new trend? Forty years ago, we were told that sugar had less than half the calories of fat, so it was ok.
Quote:
Overall, the participants did not consume more calories than before the study, as the sugary drink increased satiety and they therefore reduced their calorie intake from other sources.

I've never felt satiation from sugary anything - just the desire for more, more, more sugar. Sugary drinks were the worst - spike the blood sugar, causing a blood sugar crash, and the fluid doesn't last long enough in the stomach to make you feel full more than a few minutes.
Quote:
Particularly surprising was that the sugar we most commonly consume, sucrose, boosted fat synthesis slightly more than the same amount of fructose. Until now, it was thought that fructose was most likely to cause such changes.

I wonder how long it will be before they stop to think about the fact that starches (including those in hearthealthywholegrains) convert to glucose even faster than sugar?
Quote:
the World Health Organization recommends limiting daily sugar consumption to around 50 grams or, even better, 25 grams.

I hope this is a step along the way to realizing that simply cutting out added sugars doesn't help all that much in those who are already dealing with metabolic issues.

If you cut the added sugars way back, and there's still a problem, maybe they'll see that the naturally occurring sugars need to be cut back as well.
Reply With Quote
  #3   ^
Old Thu, Mar-18-21, 09:26
GRB5111's Avatar
GRB5111 GRB5111 is offline
Posts: 3,638
 
Plan: Very LC, Higher Protein
Stats: 227/186/185 Male 6' 0"
BF:
Progress: 98%
Location: Herndon, VA
Default

Not surprising, but it all comes down to "how you tell the story" or define sugar in this case. Focusing on refined, manufactured sugars is hardly the whole story.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Calianna
I wonder how long it will be before they stop to think about the fact that starches (including those in hearthealthywholegrains) convert to glucose even faster than sugar?

I hope this is a step along the way to realizing that simply cutting out added sugars doesn't help all that much in those who are already dealing with metabolic issues.

If you cut the added sugars way back, and there's still a problem, maybe they'll see that the naturally occurring sugars need to be cut back as well.

Good observations, fully agree.
Reply With Quote
  #4   ^
Old Thu, Mar-18-21, 10:24
wbahn's Avatar
wbahn wbahn is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,130
 
Plan: Atkins-ish, post-WLS
Stats: 324/279/174 Male 72 inches
BF:
Progress: 30%
Location: Southern Colorado, USA
Default

Sadly, most people in most fields are not really that well educated, but rather are, at best, well-trained. They are taught a bunch of "facts" that they simply accept at face value and that they then regurgitate for the rest of their career. This is as true for doctors, lawyers, and engineers as it is for nutritionists, economists, and psychiatrists. Depressingly few people in any field are taught to truly understand and think and critique what they are being taught. The result is what we see -- that diabetics are told to eat the very things that drive the progression of their disease because the people giving the advice simply accept what the textbooks and the government guidelines state despite the fact that those same textbooks and guidelines contain all of the necessary information to see how asinine this is. But things do change, even against this entrenched tide. It would be interesting to quantify the cost and lives lost associated with the process, however.
Reply With Quote
  #5   ^
Old Thu, Mar-18-21, 10:38
Ambulo's Avatar
Ambulo Ambulo is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,646
 
Plan: No GS, IF
Stats: 150/126/120 Female 64 inches
BF:
Progress: 80%
Location: the North, England
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wbahn
Sadly, most people in most fields are not really that well educated, but rather are, at best, well-trained. They are taught a bunch of "facts" that they simply accept at face value and that they then regurgitate for the rest of their career. This is as true for doctors, lawyers, and engineers as it is for nutritionists, economists, and psychiatrists. Depressingly few people in any field are taught to truly understand and think and critique what they are being taught


I remember back in Grammar school, in the 60s, being told that whereas one could get a good grade at "O" level (usually sat at 16) by rote learning and regurgitation of facts, in order to do well at "A" level (usually sat at 18), one would have to demonstrate the ability to critique and show original thought. Nowadays it seems to me that even at University students are only rewarded for parroting what lecturers and textbooks tell them with thought only required at PhD and beyond (and even then, still safer to support the orthodox line).
Reply With Quote
  #6   ^
Old Thu, Mar-18-21, 11:08
wbahn's Avatar
wbahn wbahn is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,130
 
Plan: Atkins-ish, post-WLS
Stats: 324/279/174 Male 72 inches
BF:
Progress: 30%
Location: Southern Colorado, USA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambulo
I remember back in Grammar school, in the 60s, being told that whereas one could get a good grade at "O" level (usually sat at 16) by rote learning and regurgitation of facts, in order to do well at "A" level (usually sat at 18), one would have to demonstrate the ability to critique and show original thought. Nowadays it seems to me that even at University students are only rewarded for parroting what lecturers and textbooks tell them with thought only required at PhD and beyond (and even then, still safer to support the orthodox line).


Completely agree. In fact, the whole notion of memorizing vs comprehension has been turned upside down. When I required my students to be able to derive the small-signal models for transistors from the constitutive equations I was criticized by several students for forcing them to memorize things instead of understanding them. But when I asked them what they meant, they referred to prior classes that only required them to regurgitate and use the models without any requirement at all that they have any comprehension of where those models came from, let alone why they are valid and what the limitations of them are. Yet this is what they believed constituted "understanding" and not "memorization". Having said that, they did have a point in that their approach to being able to derive the models was not to understand what the models mean and how they can be derived from the constitutive equations, but rather to simply memorize the derivations presented in class without having the slightest clue what was going on because that's the learning model all of their prior "education" had instilled in them.
Reply With Quote
  #7   ^
Old Fri, Mar-19-21, 12:08
WereBear's Avatar
WereBear WereBear is offline
Posts: 13,272
 
Plan: Epi-Paleo/IF
Stats: 220/123/150 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 139%
Location: USA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wbahn
Sadly, most people in most fields are not really that well educated, but rather are, at best, well-trained. They are taught a bunch of "facts" that they simply accept at face value and that they then regurgitate for the rest of their career. This is as true for doctors, lawyers, and engineers as it is for nutritionists, economists, and psychiatrists. Depressingly few people in any field are taught to truly understand and think and critique what they are being taught.


What an excellent summing up of so much of the problem. So many confuse expertise with a good memory...
Reply With Quote
  #8   ^
Old Sat, Mar-20-21, 05:06
WereBear's Avatar
WereBear WereBear is offline
Posts: 13,272
 
Plan: Epi-Paleo/IF
Stats: 220/123/150 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 139%
Location: USA
Default

The more I ponder this study, the more I realize how this works in OVERDRIVE when its my own body. I can have several little blocks of Lily's chocolate, which is flavored with stevia. But ONE little block of regular chocolate, or ONE dried cherry with added sugar -- instead of just a fresh cherry -- and I'm ready to unhinge the fridge door.

Obviously my body "locks up all my fuel" with even small amounts of sugar, and my body begins to starve. Since that's how it feels
Reply With Quote
  #9   ^
Old Sat, Mar-20-21, 10:35
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is online now
Senior Member
Posts: 14,443
 
Plan: mostly milkfat
Stats: 190/152.4/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 104%
Location: Ontario
Default

Quote:
Particularly surprising was that the sugar we most commonly consume, sucrose, boosted fat synthesis slightly more than the same amount of fructose.


It would be interesting to see what half as much fructose, instead of just as much sucrose, would do. It's possible that the short-term capacity for increasing fat production in response to a fructose dose was just already saturated with half as much fructose. There's an old study on sugar overconsumption--I think by Flatt and Acheson?--where with massive overconsumption of carbohydrate, it took several days for fat production to hit a much higher point than at the beginning.
Reply With Quote
  #10   ^
Old Sat, Mar-20-21, 13:26
Bob-a-rama's Avatar
Bob-a-rama Bob-a-rama is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,709
 
Plan: Keto (Atkins Induction)
Stats: 235/171/185 Male 5' 11"
BF:
Progress: 128%
Location: Florida
Default

For decades we have been told that high fat diets will kill us and we need to eat more grains.

Corporate agriculture spreads these lies in order to boost profits. After all corporations need perpetually increasing profits to keep the stockholders from jumping ship.

So they create bogus studies, and then give huge donations to entities that 'educate' the professionals and the population.

Tell a lie enough times and people will believe it.

We've been on the low fat diet for decades and we get fatter and less healthy. Isn't that enough evidence for anyone?

No, those who have been gaslighted have the attitude "My mind is already made up, don't confuse me with the facts."

But the facts speak for themselves. All you have to do is to be open to them.

I've been keto since it was called Atkins Induction and the doctor says I have a heart and circulatory system of a healthy person 20 years younger than myself. He actually said it is amazing.

I get one two-day mild cold every 15 years or so (usually when I go off plan on a vacation) and I am on zero meds at 74 years old.

Don't tell me keto is bad for me and sugars/starches are good for me.
Reply With Quote
  #11   ^
Old Sun, Mar-21-21, 06:15
WereBear's Avatar
WereBear WereBear is offline
Posts: 13,272
 
Plan: Epi-Paleo/IF
Stats: 220/123/150 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 139%
Location: USA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob-a-rama
For decades we have been told that high fat diets will kill us and we need to eat more grains.

Corporate agriculture spreads these lies in order to boost profits. After all corporations need perpetually increasing profits to keep the stockholders from jumping ship.

So they create bogus studies, and then give huge donations to entities that 'educate' the professionals and the population.


I know it sounds like a conspiracy theory, but it's TRUE. Corporations routinely do this. It always comes to lawsuits, and eventually the lies are uncovered. But it's a long struggle and in the meantime, they make far more money than the settlements ever come to.

The Ford Pinto had a famous problem with bursting into flames during an accident. I'm sure none of the higher executives at Ford drove Pintos. Problem -- for them -- solved. But the bigger picture is much more confusing to me.

Here we come to the amazing part: in a novel, there would be a secret cabal who eats the way we do. But that's not what is happening. They act like they believe their own propaganda in certain key ways.

Oh, I'm not saying they're vegan: unless they are pretending and it suits their purposes to do so. (And I think every most of the public vegans fall into this category. Look at the constant "outing" of vegans eating in public in ways they tell their followers not to.)

There are two paths to "health" in this country. One is to eat food pyramid and take pharmaceutical drugs to deal with the inevitable symptoms of chronic metabolic disease. The other is to eat with an eye towards low carb and good nutrition, and study any drugs we might take with some informed consideration.

What path is being taken by the people who are making all this money? I've seen the menus at the fancy restaurants. They eat plenty of grains and sugar along with the steaks. I'm sure they have excellent health care and they take the drugs their doctors prescribe.

They should know better... but they are still on the WRONG path. They are falling for what they are selling!
Reply With Quote
  #12   ^
Old Mon, Mar-22-21, 13:42
Bob-a-rama's Avatar
Bob-a-rama Bob-a-rama is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,709
 
Plan: Keto (Atkins Induction)
Stats: 235/171/185 Male 5' 11"
BF:
Progress: 128%
Location: Florida
Default

It's not a conspiracy at all, it's the hidden problem in capitalism (not that I can think of a better way).

In my small businesses, all I need to do is to make enough money to pay the help and myself and keep up with inflation. Anything else is necessary.

If a corporation did that, their stock would stay level, the stockholders would jump ship, and the corporation would collapse.

The corporation needs perpetual profits, each quarter making more profit than the previous one to keep the stockholders happy.

So they will do anything to get you to buy their products, even if their product is junk food.

To be aware of this point will give you enough skepticism to analyze the test data; who sponsored it, how was it run, was it published in a respected, peer-reviewed journal, was it repeated by an independent party, etc. ???

I know that Archer-Daniels-Midland sponsored tests that manipulated statistics to indicate that eating more grains improved your heart health. The presented this to the American Heart Association along with millions of dollars per year in donations. The donations were given without strings, but the AHA knows if it wants to keep the money coming, it had better stick with those bogus tests.

Like I said, capitalism is a great system, but like any system, it has it's faults. I wish I know how to fix it, but I'm not that smart in that category.

Bob
Reply With Quote
  #13   ^
Old Mon, Mar-22-21, 18:49
Ms Arielle's Avatar
Ms Arielle Ms Arielle is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 15,266
 
Plan: atkins
Stats: 255/230/200 Female 5'8"
BF:
Progress: 45%
Location: Massachusetts
Default

Just head that during Reagan's administration, funding for NIH was decreased, leaving s vacuum filled by corporate money. Results of any study is tainted .
Reply With Quote
  #14   ^
Old Tue, Mar-23-21, 04:09
WereBear's Avatar
WereBear WereBear is offline
Posts: 13,272
 
Plan: Epi-Paleo/IF
Stats: 220/123/150 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 139%
Location: USA
Default

My DH, and I agree, says well-regulated capitalism seems to have the best results. It also encourages "good actors," who cultivate their employees, treat them fairly, and make decisions about longevity and public reputation.

Treating customers fairly and this kind of managed competition (trust-busting for the win!) creates a market which gives the proper feedback. But this slant to the stock market we deal with now only benefits a bunch of liars, cheaters, and thieves.
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 16:47.


Copyright © 2000-2021 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.