Support NeoGAF

[maximum360]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/06/150601122540.htm

In the last 40 years, fructose, a simple carbohydrate derived from fruit and vegetables, has been on the increase in American diets. Because of the addition of high-fructose corn syrup to many soft drinks and processed baked goods, fructose currently accounts for 10 percent of caloric intake for U.S. citizens. Male adolescents are the top fructose consumers, deriving between 15 to 23 percent of their calories from fructose--three to four times more than the maximum levels recommended by the American Heart Association.

A recent study at the Beckman Institute for Advanced Science and Technology at the University of Illinois found that, matched calorie for calorie with the simple sugar glucose, fructose causes significant weight gain, physical inactivity, and body fat deposition.

The paper, "Fructose decreases physical activity and increases body fat without affecting hippocampal neurogenesis and learning relative to an isocaloric glucose diet," was published in Scientific Reports.

"The link between increases in sugar intake, particularly fructose, and the rising obesity epidemic has been debated for many years with no clear conclusions," said Catarina Rendeiro, a postdoctoral research affiliate at the Beckman Institute for Advanced Science and Technology and lead author on the study. "The reality is that people are not only consuming more fructose through their diets, but also consuming more calories in general.

"One of the key questions is whether an increase in fructose intake contributes to obesity in the absence of excessive calorie intake."

The researchers, under the direction of Justin Rhodes of Beckman's NeuroTech Group and professor of psychology at Illinois, studied two groups of mice for two-and-a-half months: one group was fed a diet in which 18 percent of the calories came from fructose, mimicking the intake of adolescents in the United States, and the other was fed 18 percent from glucose.

"The important thing to note is that animals in both experimental groups had the usual intake of calories for a mouse," said Rendeiro. "They were not eating more than they should, and both groups had exactly the same amount of calories deriving from sugar, the only difference was the type of sugar, either fructose or glucose."

The results showed that the fructose-fed mice displayed significantly increased body weight, liver mass, and fat mass in comparison to the glucose-fed mice.

"In previous studies, the increases in fructose consumption were accompanied by increases in overall food intake, so it is difficult to know whether the animals put on weight due to the fructose itself or simply because they were eating more," Rhodes said.

Remarkably, the researchers also found that not only were the fructose-fed mice gaining weight, they were also less active.

"We don't know why animals move less when in the fructose diet," said Rhodes. "However, we estimated that the reduction in physical activity could account for most of the weight gain."

"Biochemical factors could also come into play in how the mice respond to the high fructose diet," explained Jonathan Mun, another author on the study. "We know that contrary to glucose, fructose bypasses certain metabolic steps that result in an increase in fat formation, especially in adipose tissue and liver."

The precise mechanisms are still being investigated, but one thing is certain: high intake of fructose by itself adds pounds.

"We designed this study based on the intake of fructose by adolescents in the United States," said Rhodes. "Our study suggests that such levels of fructose can indeed play a role in weight gain, favor fat deposition, and also contribute to physical inactivity. Given the dramatic increase in obesity among young people and the severe negative effects that this can have on health throughout one's life, it is important to consider what foods are providing our calories."

 

[m_shortpants]

I try to avoid HFCS wherever I can. Shits in everything though. Even things like steak sauce, it's ridiculous.

Damn corn subsidies.

 

[XenodudeX]

Fuck you I'm not fat!

 

[Slixshot]

Im not fat

Im only lazy when Im not working and Im a fitness professional...

Interesting read though. Poor rats. Always bein tested on and sheittt

 

[geomon]

Well so much for that shit then.

 

[RockTurtle]

That's why i only drink Kosher and Mexican Coke!

 

[Sectorseven]

Cliff notes?

 

[tearsintherain]

I've been on a low carb diet the past year and its insane how much food contains high fructose corn syrup, things you would never expect. On the plus side shopping is really easy nowadays, just stroll down the meat aisle, the veggie aisle, and skip 90% of the store.

Definitely sleep a lot better and feel more alert during the day. 20+ years from now people are going to look at the 20th and early 21st century and wonder how stupid were we for stuffing HFCS into everything, just like we can't believe the Flintstone and Lucy ads peddling cigarettes.

 

[SolVanderlyn]

As long as it's not in salsa, I'm good

 

[nabe_shogun]

That's why i only drink Kosher and Mexican Coke!

The mexican coke tastes way better too. I hate going back to hfcs version whenever Im out and have a coke.

 

[realwords]

Switched to a Ketogenic diet last summer and have lost around 50-60 pounds since then. Once you switch off a diet that utilizes a lot of fructose, tasting again makes you realize how synthetic and unnaturally sweet it tastes. Can't even drink soda without cringing.

 

[Mii]

That's why i only drink Kosher and Mexican Coke!

I have 10 fruit smoothies ! So healthy!

 

[Korey]

Stop eating all carbs and you won't be fat anymore.

The mexican coke tastes way better too. I hate going back to hfcs version whenever Im out and have a coke.

"Mexican coke" is a placebo based on the glass bottle and exotic idea of it. It doesn't actually taste better. http://drinks.seriouseats.com/2011/...oke-coke-taste-test-coke-vs-mexican-coke.html

 

[RockTurtle]

Cliff notes?

i mean it's not that long a read but:

basically what we already knew, hfcs make you fat faster but now with the added bonus of making you more lethargic.

hfcs bypass some normal biological breakdown procedures and go straight into your system as fats.

forgot to mention, also MIGHT be some link to making you hungrier too, or at least eat more based on the mice's food consumption.

 

[Trojita]

Yet some people will try and claim that there isn't anything different with it and it's just "calories in calories out".

 

[Tesseract]

no shit . tom cruise

 

[Prototype Viktor]

And here I thought it was moderation like a idiot.

 

[Shaneus]

So glad HFCS seems to only be an American thing. Wonder how fat most of Australia would be if they were here, too.

 

[HIGH DEF JEFF]

It's Day 3 of the "Fed Up" challenge for me and I feel great.

 

[FLUXCapacitor]

Yet some people will try and claim that there isn't anything different with it and it's just "calories in calories out".

Yeah waiting for the calories in calories out crowd to come in here. Sorry but foods have different and complex metabolic effects on the body which can also vary for each individual.

 

[flintstryker]

Stop eating all carbs and you won't be fat anymore.



"Mexican coke" is a placebo based on the glass bottle and exotic idea of it. It doesn't actually taste better. http://drinks.seriouseats.com/2011/...oke-coke-taste-test-coke-vs-mexican-coke.html

I will never understand this sentiment

 

[MultiCore]

HFCS is delicious.

I spend months at a time drinking Coke sweetened with sugar, and when I get back home... It's pure bliss.

 

[Arksy]

When will people understand, sugar and HFCS, for all intents and purposes, are the same fucking thing?

They're both equally bad.

 

[kess]

CORN. EVERYTHING. EVERYWHERE.

 

[Team Alucard]

it's just "calories in calories out".

Because it is.

I mean seriously, right here in the article.

"However, we estimated that the reduction in physical activity could account for most of the weight gain."

One group of mice was less active than the other while calorie consumption was the same for both. Obviously, the group of mice that was expending fewer calories gained more weight than the group that was expending more.

 

[Log4Girlz]

Because it is.

I mean seriously, right here in the article.



One group of mice was less active than the other while calorie consumption was the same for both. Obviously, the group of mice that was expending fewer calories gained more weight.

Amazing how they randomly picked the lazy mice to get the fructose.

 

[Ultrabum]

Pretty interesting paper.

In their conclusions: "Curiously, in human studies that use isocaloric diets with subjects in energy balance (i.e., equal energy intake and expenditure), observed no overall effects of fructose in BW gain20, 21."

also, links to the whole paper. http://www.nature.com/srep/2015/150411/srep09589/full/srep09589.html

 

[entremet]

Stop eating all carbs and you won't be fat anymore.



"Mexican coke" is a placebo based on the glass bottle and exotic idea of it. It doesn't actually taste better. http://drinks.seriouseats.com/2011/...oke-coke-taste-test-coke-vs-mexican-coke.html

Could you explain Asian cultures, which remain slim and have up to 75 percent of their calories in carbs?

There's a huge difference between a baked potato and a pop tart. Not all carbs are created equal.

 

[Randolph Freelander]

I love me some Coca-Cola.

Mmmmm, fructose.

 

[Langdon Alger]

Amazing how they randomly picked the lazy mice to get the fructose.

He didn't say that. His point was that this study doesn't contradict calories in vs calories out. (No study has ever contradicted calories in vs calories out, and no study ever will.)

 

[Crud]

I love me some Coca-Cola.

Mmmmm, fructose.

SICK

 

[Korey]

Could you explain Asian cultures, which remain slim and have up to 75 percent of their calories in carbs?

[Citation needed]

Also, there's studies that Asians hold their internal fat differently, so they can appear slim while having more visceral fat than it looks like from the outside. Because of this diabetes is under-diagnosed in Asia.

There's a huge difference between a baked potato and a pop tart. Not all carbs are created equal.

Nope, they're all the same. Sugar raises your blood sugar faster, but in the end they all break down to the same thing and make you fat. Fruit is actually bad for you. So are potatoes, bread, pasta, etc.

 

[Arksy]

Could you explain Asian cultures, which remain slim and have up to 75 percent of their calories in carbs?

There's a huge difference between a baked potato and a pop tart. Not all carbs are created equal.

This. So much this. Fructose is the bad guy, not glucose.

 

[Dr_Boris_Goltz]

I refuse to believe fruit is bad for you.

It's a natural food without any bullshit in it, right?

 

[Skux]

When will people understand, sugar and HFCS, for all intents and purposes, are the same fucking thing?

They're both equally bad.

This is correct. The only thing that has changed is its prevalence.

I mean, there's fructose in bread these days, what the fuck?

 

[Maiden Voyage]

Pretty interesting paper.

In their conclusions: "Curiously, in human studies that use isocaloric diets with subjects in energy balance (i.e., equal energy intake and expenditure), observed no overall effects of fructose in BW gain20, 21."

also, links to the whole paper. http://www.nature.com/srep/2015/150411/srep09589/full/srep09589.html

So if you don't burn what you intake, then HFCS is worse for you than sugars? I thought this was well known.

 

[Arksy]

I refuse to believe fruit is bad for you.

It's a natural food without any bullshit in it, right?

Raw fruit has a ton of fibre which counteracts the sugar because it slows its absorption right down. When you have the sugar without fibre it gets really messy really quick from a metabolic standpoint.

 

[Malleavel]

Is the article about just HFCS or fructose in general?

 

[Skux]

I refuse to believe fruit is bad for you.

It's a natural food without any bullshit in it, right?

This is correct if it's your only source of fructose. The problem is not fruit, the problem is that fructose is used in so many processed foods that we're eating way more than is healthy.

 

[Laieon]

But I'm underweight and active.

 

[G-Bus]

Has a pretty good part about HFCS.

 

[Superman00]

[Citation needed]

Also, there's studies that Asians hold their internal fat differently, so they can appear slim while having more visceral fat than it looks like from the outside. Because of this diabetes is under-diagnosed in Asia.




Nope, they're all the same. Sugar raises your blood sugar faster, but in the end they all break down to the same thing and make you fat. Fruit is actually bad for you. So are potatoes, bread, pasta, etc.

I guess you don't do high intensity cardio then, cause high carbs day are when I get the most energy to play basketball. Fruits are bad for you? I must already be dead cause I have eaten so much fruit all these years.

 

[Goddard]

I'm fat and lazy because it is an extremely appealing lifestyle, not because of high fructose corn syrup.

 

[sk3]

So if you don't burn what you intake, then HFCS is worse for you than sugars? I thought this was well known.

That is significantly different than the "lol weight gain is intake<->outtake" arguments that have dominated the fitness industry.

From what I read, this is saying with the exact same caloric input, weight gain and retention varies greatly depending on the type of the caloric source. That seems like a big deal.

 

[bobbytkc]

I refuse to believe fruit is bad for you.

It's a natural food without any bullshit in it, right?

My sarcasm detector is broken. I don't know what you are trying to communicate.

 

[entremet]

[Citation needed]

Also, there's studies that Asians hold their internal fat differently, so they can appear slim while having more visceral fat than it looks like from the outside. Because of this diabetes is under-diagnosed in Asia.




Nope, they're all the same. Sugar raises your blood sugar faster, but in the end they all break down to the same thing and make you fat. Fruit is actually bad for you. So are potatoes, bread, pasta, etc.

Here's the citation from Harvard Medical School:

http://hms.harvard.edu/news/lower-diabetes-risk-asian-diet

Did you know that some of the longest lived people eat plenty of carbs?

https://www.bluezones.com/2015/04/t...althiest-people-9-questions-for-dan-buettner/

Your body does break down carbohydrate sources into glucose, which is the preferred fuel for the brain and cells.

You're confusing table sugar or sucrose with glucose, which is the end point of most carbohydrates after digestion.

I've run ketosis diets and low carb diets, so I get how they work, but vilifying all carbs as evil is silly.

 

[-Gozer-]

Get the facts.

 

[Kai Dracon]

The mystery phenomenon cited in the study is animals inclined to move less with too much fructose. Given that mice aren't on the internet or watching TV, one has to be suspicious that some chemical interaction is quietly and persistently changing behavior.

I don't know - it just doesn't seem to pass the smell test to think "Well, suddenly in the space of a decade 90% of the population became five times as lazy for no reason at all." Even blaming it on the rise of desk jobs, long commutes, and yes porn on the internet, may be too simplistic.

 

[bobbytkc]

From what I read, this is saying with the exact same caloric input, weight gain and retention varies greatly depending on the type of the caloric source. That seems like a big deal.

It is not the same. One of the groups with with fructose as the caloric source is also more physically inactive.

 

[Ultrabum]

So if you don't burn what you intake, then HFCS is worse for you than sugars? I thought this was well known.

My understanding of the paper is that compared to glucose, fructose resulted in 11% heavier mice, not from increased calorie intake (which was the same between the two groups of mice), but because of reduced activity (or increased activity) between the groups.

See:
Food intake

Average food intake expressed as a percentage of BW was not significantly different between treatments for the entire duration of the experiment.

(although it was different if not normalized to Body weight

By the end of the 11-week experiment, the fructose animals weighed on average 2.6&#8197;grams, or 11%, more than the glucose animals.


Home cage physical activity

Home cage activity across the 5 days of testing is presented for both the dark cycle (Fig. 3a) and the light cycle (Fig. 3b). Days 4 and 5 were chosen a priori to data collection as reliable measures of locomotor activity based on our previous experiments demonstrating that it takes a minimum of 3 days for animals to acclimatize38. Specifically, during the dark cycle on days 4 and 5, mice given the fructose diet traveled significantly less (approximately 20% less) in comparison to animals fed the glucose diet (t20 = 2.17, P < 0.05) (Fig. 3c). No differences in cage activity were detected during the light cycle, as expected. Two animals in the glucose treatment group were excluded from data analysis due to erroneous video tracking.


Its much easier to see if you look at the graphs in the paper.

Also, I still think its interesting that there's no differences in body weight in human studies. This seems like leptin stuff all over again imo.