Posted on 07/19/2009 6:13:33 PM PDT by Coleus
Researchers at Georgia State University have found that diets high in fructose — a type of sugar found in most processed foods and beverages — impaired the spatial memory of adult rats. Amy Ross, a graduate student in the lab of Marise Parent, associate professor at Georgia State's Neuroscience Institute and Department of Psychology, fed a group of Sprague-Dawley rats a diet where fructose represented 60 percent of calories ingested during the day.
She placed the rats in a pool of water to test their ability to learn to find a submerged platform, which allowed them to get out of the water. She then returned them to the pool two days later with no platform present to see if the rats could remember to swim to the platform's location. "What we discovered is that the fructose diet doesn't affect their ability to learn," Parent said. "But they can't seem to remember as well where the platform was when you take it away. They swam more randomly than rats fed a control diet."
Fructose, unlike another sugar, glucose, is processed almost solely by the liver, and produces an excessive amount of triglycerides — fat which get into the bloodstream. Triglycerides can interfere with insulin signaling in the brain, which plays a major role in brain cell survival and plasticity, or the ability for the brain to change based on new experiences.
Results were similar in adolescent rats, but it is unclear whether the effects of high fructose consumption are permanent, she said. Parent's lab works with Timothy Bartness, Regents' Professor of Biology, and John Mielke of the University of Waterloo in Waterloo, Ontario, Canada to examine how diet influences brain function.
Although humans do not eat fructose in levels as high as rats in the experiments, the consumption of foods sweetened with fructose — which includes both common table sugar, fruit juice concentrates, as well as the much-maligned high fructose corn syrup — has been increasing steadily. High intake of fructose is associated with numerous health problems, including insulin insensitivity, type II diabetes, obesity and cardiovascular disease.
"The bottom line is that we were meant to have an apple a day as our source of fructose," Parent said. "And now, we have fructose in almost everything." Moderation is key, as well as exercise, she said. Exercise is a next step in ongoing research, and Parent's team will investigate whether exercise might mitigate the memory effects of high fructose intake. Her lab is also researching whether the intake of fish oil can prevent the increase of triglycerides and memory deficits. Results from that research will be presented by her graduate student Emily Bruggeman at the 2009 Society for Neuroscience meeting in Chicago this fall.
There goes the gin and tonic.
People, get off the white breads, fried foods and sugars. It is killing you. Eat whole grains and real food.
Fructose is bad news. When I buy anything in a package with ingredients listed, if high-fructose corn syrup is on the list, I put it back on the shelf. The name brands have it more often than the store brands.
And this is how it works, from two con-man angles:
A politician or a trial lawyer discovers a cash-cow.
The politician or trial lawyer pays for some investigative research to begin, and instructs the people he's hired exactly what he wants to find.
The politician or trial lawyer uses a PR firm to start hitting the MSM to broadcast stories alleging what the research has been hired to find.
The scare-mill begins to churn out the stories.
The politician and trial lawyer begin to talk about the horror of what has been happening.
The politician implements a tax to steal some of the profits from the targeted industry.
The trial lawyer launches a class-action suit to steal some of the profits from the targeted industry.
By the time the legislation/trail begins, the majority of Americans have already heard (through the trusty authority of the MSM) that the targeted industry is guilty. Thus, the targeted industry has lost even before they step into the congressional/senatorial hearing or courtroom to defend themselves.
Sugar is the next target, folks.
Americans love sugar.
And the tyrant in a nanny's apron is coming after you and your wallet.
So many of these studies are on the margins. I mean, okay so you’ll lose 6 months off the end of your life— when I’m on my deathbed I’ll probably wish I had pigged out more.
It seems to me that if you eat pretty much whatever you want, in moderation, it should be ok.
Who eats 60% of their calories in fructose? Maybe fruitarians.
We bought a case of the Pepsi Throwback.......it’s made with real sugar. I have no memory of the taste from my childhood, but it does not give the instant sugar high of the regular sodas out there.
Congressional Rats most affected.
Little know fact. “High Fructose Corn Syrup” has as much fructose in it as ... regular sugar. So things that contain HFC are no worse for you than regular sugar. That said, we shouldn’t eat so much sugar in the first place...
Rats are a temperate zone animal. Humans, in contrast, are a tropical zone animal. No doubt temperate zone animals are not designed to handle vast quantities of fructose. At the same time tropical zone animals are so designed and can consume vast quantities of oranges, bananas, etc. easily.
You are right... it should be a personal choice... whether you want to be healthy and lean or sick and fat... (shrug)
I think you left out the fact that human bodies don’t tend to digest corn and corn related products well either...
It is worse because it is processed differently by the body. If you get a change, take a look at any group grade school photo from 40 years ago compared to today's kids. Obesity was rare. Chubby was occasional. The percentage of really fat kids and adults now is astonishing. The change that has occurred in the last 10-15 years is scary.
As a comparison, the last study I saw on human consumption of fructose said that the average American gets about 8% of his total daily calories from fructose. What a waste of time and money.
There’s no difference in the fructose and glucose found in HFCS and the fructose and glucose found in sucrose (sugar). Your body can’t differentiate the source nor does it care. Whether or not our bodies can digest corn or corn products well has no relevance here.
If you make your chicken wings by using whole wheat flour, will that make them ok?
No. HFCS and sugar (sucrose) are made up of the same two chemicals. Those two chemicals are metabolized no differently by your body even if they have two separate sources.
If you get a change, take a look at any group grade school photo from 40 years ago compared to today's kids. Obesity was rare. Chubby was occasional. The percentage of really fat kids and adults now is astonishing. The change that has occurred in the last 10-15 years is scary.
Overeating meets a sedentary lifestyle. If you eat more calories than you burn getting fat will be the result. That's the problem. No more, no less.
I love sugar, and I’m in excellent shape.
And yes, it is a personal choice and it’s none of the government’s business to be taxing it, as they’ve proposed.
.
thanks, bfl
Sugar Is Back on Food Labels, This Time as a Selling Point
"Both sugar and high-fructose corn syrup are made from glucose and fructose. The level of fructose is about 5 percent higher in the corn sweetener."
That's wrong. Cane sugar or beet sugar is sucrose which is a one to one compound of fructose and glucose. I used to think what's the big deal with HFCS? Both fructose and glucose are 6 carbon sugars and have the same amount of calories. That was until I read some papers describing de novo lipogenesis when fructose is metabolized.
According to Maureen Storey, Ph.D., CFNAP director and a member of the study team, there are three types of HFCS products (HFCS-55, HFCS-42, and HFCS-90), but only HFCS-55 and HFCS-42 are commonly used as sweeteners. HFCS-90 is mainly used in the production of HFCS-55, but is seldom directly added to foods and beverages. The composition of HFCS-55 (55% fructose and 42% glucose) is very similar to that of sucrose (50% fructose and 50% glucose). HFCS-42 (42% fructose and 53% glucose) actually contains less fructose than sucrose does.
So in HFCS-55, it's fructose 55% to glucose 42%, that's almost one third more fructose compared to glucose.
HFCS-55 is used mainly in beverages, such as carbonated and non-carbonated soft drinks; HFCS-42 is used to sweeten a wide variety of foods.
Here's more.
There are four links at the source.
FReepmail me if you want on or off the diabetes ping list.
Source please?
What were we talking about? I forgot.
That's wrong. Cane sugar or beet sugar is sucrose which is a one to one compound of fructose and glucose. I used to think what's the big deal with HFCS? Both fructose and glucose are 6 carbon sugars and have the same amount of calories. That was until I read some papers describing de novo lipogenesis when fructose is metabolized.
No, that's not wrong at all. What is it about de novo lipogenesis that has you so concerned?
Does it sounds scary because when lab rats are fed 60% of their total calories from fructose, when humans only average about 8% of their total calories from fructose, all sorts of bad things happen to the lab rats? Good grief. Who knew drinking an extra glass of fruit juice every day could cause so many ills. I wonder what kinds of sicknesses lab rats would develop if they were fed nothing but NACL?
So in HFCS-55, it's fructose 55% to glucose 42%, that's almost one third more fructose compared to glucose.
HFCS-55 is used mainly in beverages, such as carbonated and non-carbonated soft drinks; HFCS-42 is used to sweeten a wide variety of foods
So HFCS 42 is ok because it has a lot less fructose than glucose in it while HFCS 55 is bad for us because it has more fructose than glucose. So then, is straight corn syrup really really good for us because it's 97% glucose?
I was wondering about that as I drink smoothies every day, mostly with fruit. I think they are talking about fruit drinks (concentrated)? Although I have read that a person should limit their fruit intake and never understood why.
neverdem, I hope you won't mind my introducing Mase to this thread -- we have just been discussing HFCS here. He doesn't think it's a big deal; I have doubts, but am not conversant either way.
Please refrain from any flaming, such is EXPRESSLY NOT my intent. I just happened to notice both of you have seemed interested in the past.
My apologies if you happen already to be best friends, or (worse!) mortal enemies.
Cheers!
I just noticed Mase was *PINGED* to this very post #22.
Mea effin' culpa and all that.
Cheers!
Cheers!
“People, get off the white breads, fried foods and sugars. It is killing you. Eat whole grains and real food.”
How is it that our ancestors, back to nncient times (the Romans for example) managed to live on diets that consisted mostly of bread or some form of it. That included white bread and dark grains. Ir waS not chock full of additives or weird chemicals, but it was grains, and it was bread. whole grains, even if white, are good. All over the world people eat bread. All of my relatives ate a lifetime of bread, and most lived past 70 years, many into their late 80’s or early 90’s. They ate Butternut bread and Wonder bread too. I just don’t understand this latest bias and fad against bread. Fiber is good.
Bake your own bread. Anyone can do it now with bread machines. I know, I recently started making the bulk of my own bread in my bread machine. Tastes great and you can control what goes into it. I refuse to jump on the anti-bread bandwagon. You just need to eat it in moderation, like any other food. And pasta too. I love my protein as well. Again, moderation should be the operative word (not so easy for some, including myself, I must admit). But to select out a food that has been a staple throughout history for modern day vilification is ridiculous, IMHO.
By white bread, I meant non-whole grain processed breads. I was not vilifying all bread, just the processed crap that has no nutrition and is just quickly processed by our bodies into sugar. Sorry if my terminology was not precise.
According to Wikipedia, the most widely used form of HFCS is 55% fructose. That means theat the fructose/glucose ratio is 22% higher than regular sugar.
I have no opinions about HFCS, but that study sounds downright goofy. Floating rats vs. floating rats with sugar. Lots to learn there.
Note, I am NOT SAYING that eating alot of HFCS is not "bad" for you, what I am saying is that for all intents and purposes, I believe it is just about the same thing as eating too much sugar. IMHO, we simply eat too much simple sugars, but mostly, WESTERN MAN EATS TOO MUCH FOOD and gets too little exercise. Simply as that. There is no bogey man out there, no conspiracies. Portion sizes have increased greatly, and life has gotten too easy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.