Study discovers difference in way fructose and glucose impact brain
Article Source: msnbc.com
from:msnbc.comBrain's response to sugars may explain obesity
Seeded on Thu Feb 10, 2011 6:32 PM EST (msnbc.com)
- msnbc.com sites & shows:
- TODAY
- Rock Center
- Nightly News
- Meet the Press
- Dateline
- Morning Joe
- Hardball
- Ed
- Maddow
- Last Word
- msnbc tv
Leave a Comment:
I am glad that mainstream media is finally catching on to the reasons for our nations obesity epidemic and printing articles like this. I bet the subsidized corn lobby will come out with thier own study saying just the opposite.
My dieting did not work till I cut out all sodas and most processed foods (loaded with high fructose corn syrup) And aspartamane(sp) is no better.
When patients of mine realize how many calories a week they're ingesting in sodas and other sweetened drinks, they're flabbergasted. Same thing with those little mini candies people leave on their desks. Scarf down about ten of them and you've taken in about 10-15% of your daily caloric needs.
I just started reading a book called "Good Calories, Bad Calories" and am only now shedding the recommendation to patients that they need to go low-fat, low-cholesterol to lose weight and improve their cholesterol ratios. I'm recommending steak, chicken, fish and leafy salad with plenty of water and the occasional fruit salad. Grains are the enemy (well, simple grains, at least).
I joined Weight Watchers and they stress paying attention to portion size (which I think this country really lacks the care to do) and normally you pick up a snack bag of something and eat it all, not realizing it's actually two or more servings. I now pay so much more attention to things like that, and it's a real eye opener on how much we're kind of "duped." There is so much sugar and sodium in our food, it's insane! Even "100% Fruit Juices" are pretty much off limits because half a cup serving contains 28+mg of sugar. Then tortilla chips, which can seem like a nice snack, have 130+mg of sodium. Giant Eagle brand chips actually have the least sodium that I've found, at 80mg/serving (about 13 chips) but how many people only eat 13 chips? Duppped.
A friend of mine got us tickets to a concert so we decided to go to PF Chuengs before. I had never eating there but knew it was one of those "Bad List" restaurants for calories. So I went to their website and used their nutrition facts page to calculate meals and see what was the lowest WW Points. What I also noticed, was that there were serving sizes. On their General Tso's chicken, it was "3 servings" for the one plate. I thought "ok, I'll get that since the points aren't too bad and then box the rest." When I got the plate, I swear there was less food on it than in a Chinese take-out box! It's amazing how much crap is packed into a tiny serving! Good thing I checked it out before I went otherwise I would have eaten the whole plate.
I really don't think many, if any, people intentionally gain weight. I think things are hidden or masked from us and portions and ingredients have become worse and we just don't realize it until we're shown.
Free Samples are offered for a limited time so when they are posted please take advantage of the offer before it is gone. Look online for "123 Get Samples" where I was able to get healthy product samples.
Another reason for minimizing the simple carbohydrate intake and sticking with fats and proteins. The low fat, high carb diet is killing us. I didn't believe it at first, but after talking with hunderds of patients about their eating patterns, looking at food diaries, I'm convinced that (most) carbs are the enemy. All the times that patients have severely restricted their calorie intake they've lost weight, but I suspect it was more to restricting their carbs than anything else. Once these people started to eat 'real food' again, they kept most of the carbs off of their plate and kept the weight off.
I think you need a little carbs though, like maybe a piece of bread a day or a potato or something. I can't stand it when people totally cut them out completely because you NEED some fat, some sugar, some carbs. Just not over-do it. Also, just cutting something out may make you lose weight faster, but it will make you gain it back quicker if you stop being strict about it. The best way to lose and keep it off is to balance, not deprive, and just cut back on the processed stuff. Instead of "diet," just change your habits. Weight Watchers is good, or any other diet that never tells you to "NEVER EAT _____."
A little bit, agreed. I've tried going completely carb free and felt horrible.
Clearly, the US eats way too much in the way of carbs. Went to the food store just today to grab some deli stuff and everywhere I looked, carbs. Pita chips, doughnut holes, etc etc etc. We've ended up just stuffing ourselves with carbs in an attempt to avoid fat, and it's made us fatter.
Oh yeah, totally agree with you there, we rely way too much on carbs. They are packaged with too much access and availability. If you run in to grab a snack for work, what are you more likely to grab (society in general), an apple or a bag of chips? You gotta walk to the fruit section to get an apple, but chips are right by the register!
Obviously, consuming large amounts of refined carbohydrates is a bad idea. Clearly. But to demonize HFCS based on it's fructose content just doesn't make sense. HFCS 55, which is type used in most soft drinks and other popular products, is 55% fructose. As far as "natural," "real," or "healthy" alternatives go, they're essentially the same or worse. White and purple grape juices are about 50% fructose. Honey is even with HFCS 55 at about 55% fructose. Apple and pear juices are around 60-65% fructose. Agave syrup, often touted as a great "natural" and "healthy" alternative sweetener, is around 80% fructose! There's nothing special about HFCS, certainly at least with respect to its fructose/glucose ratio. It's also worth mentioning that fructose has a glycemic index of about 20, which is extremely low. Glucose, on the other hand, has a GI of 100, while sucrose has a GI of about 65. If any sugar is going to spike your blood sugar and insulin levels (promoting fat accretion, unstable energy levels and hunger/cravings, etc.), it's not going to be fructose.
Fructose is not the problem. Diets low in protein and fiber, along with a general overconsumption of calories and ridiculously sedentary lifestyles, are the problem. Let's get the fundamentals handled before we start blaming individual sugar sources for the incredible rates of overweight and obesity we have in this country. We certainly have quite a lot of work to do before we've got those down pat.
NutritionPerfected.com/np-blog.html
I'm confused! I'd like to use this information in a project.
First paragraph: Fructose stimulates brain activity in those regions, while glucose decreases them.
Ninth paragraph: "Brain activity in these regions went up with glucose and went down with fructose" from baseline measurements, Purnell said. The magnitudes of the sugars' effects were equal — brain activity rose in response to glucose by the same extent that it fell in response to fructose.
Your article contradicts itself relative to brain activity with glucose versus fructose. Similar comments have already been made.
What I want to know is why American media has not picked up the news story from the other day, out of New Zealand, about how fructose could damage fetal development?
http://oflabratsandmen.blogspot.com/2011/02/fructose-and-fetal-harm.html
I haven't seen a single American news source publish anything about it.
As a Registered Dietitian, I believe that all foods can be enjoyed in moderation in the context of an overall healthy lifestyle. Our obesity epidemic will never be under control if we attempt to impose severe restrictions on the types of food people can eat. If we teach people how to make healthy changes in nutrition, exercise, stress management and sleep, we will improve the overall health of our nation as well as quality of life. For more information visit www.thefriedchickendiet.com
I told a patient today who is obese and has high cholesterol to eat eggs and cheese every morning instead of his usual bagels/cereal/toast. In about six weeks I'll check his cholesterol again and see what it is. I'll bet it actually goes down.
There are two paragraphs that made me really confused:
First paragraph: Two very similar sugars — fructose and glucose — cause quite opposite reactions in some regions of the brain, according to a new study. Fructose stimulates brain activity in those regions, while glucose decreases them.
Ninth paragraph: The magnitudes of the sugars' effects were equal — brain activity rose in response to glucose by the same extent that it fell in response to fructose.
Would some one explain it please?