PDA

View Full Version : Biochemistry, differences and similarities of ethanol, sugar, and carbohydrates



William
2013-Oct-05, 04:49 PM
Is there someone out there who has some knowledge of biochemistry? Dr. Lustig in this presentation explains how the body processes ethanol, sugar, and carbohydrates and how due to the biochemistry, consumption affects health.

Is what he is saying correct?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

Dr Robert Lustig was interviewed on a CBS 60 minute special: Is Sugar Toxic? If Lustig’s science is correct, my understanding of nutrition and the benefits of excercise is more myth than science. I am starting to wonder where I got my ideas concerning nutrition.

Noclevername
2013-Oct-05, 07:12 PM
Per Wikipedia:
Meta-analysis studies have indicated that the clinical trials cited by Lustig, which were aimed at studying carbohydrate consumption, were of only short duration and variable quality, and that study subjects had only modest increases in body weight, thus precluding definitive conclusions.[6][9]

Several studies show that for small doses (less than 10 grams per meal), fructose consumption may actually have a catalytic effect that reduces blood glucose levels with no consequent change in body weight.[10][11]

One controversial issue surrounding fructose consumption is its role in blocking satiety. Lustig's research suggests that fructose consumption reduces satiety leading to over-consumption. Trials that focus on isocaloric diets and on light fructose consumption do not address the issue of satiety and over-consumption.

In athletes requiring sugar to meet their caloric needs, fructose may enhance exercise performance by stimulating nutrient absorption and energy metabolism.[12]

Animal research has provided evidence for deleterious effects of excessive fructose consumption,[13] and potential for negative impact on triglycerides, LDL cholesterol and apolipoprotein-B.[14]

Some scientists report that the combination of medical disorders known as metabolic syndrome (syndrome X) results mainly from excessive caloric intake and that fructose should not be singled out[6][15] as a particular villain. In fact, small 'catalytic' doses of fructose may improve control of blood glucose.[10] Further, fructose is the normal, natural monosaccharide sugar present in sweet-tasting plant foods.[10][15][16]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Lustig

So it's not yet determined if he's right or not.

Nick Theodorakis
2013-Oct-05, 08:50 PM
It's a long video, and I've only seen about the first 30 minutes or so (which looks like it's before the controversial bit starts) before I have to go, so here are some thoughts.

First, Lustig is a real doctor and researcher, with an established publication record in real journals; see:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=lustig+rh

There is nothing particularly controversial about the first 30 minutes of the video. I was somewhat relieved to see that he is not pushing the hype that HFCS is more evil than regular sucrose, and he is correct in that the body metabolizes HFCS and sucrose nearly identically. He also correctly notes that we are consuming more calories than we used to, so no surprise there. Also there is nothing out of the mainstream with the recommendation that people should limit the amount of calories from sugar (whether HFCS or sucrose). And it is certainly true that glucose and fructose have different metabolic and physiologic processing.

Based on his intro, it sounds like he is going to make a case that fructose metabolism interferes with our ability to recognize satiety. I will have to watch the rest of the video and/or look at some of his papers, but so far I am going to suggest that what he has is a hypothesis rather than an explanation.

I'll try to post more after I have time to go over his material.

Nick

William
2013-Oct-05, 10:12 PM
It's a long video, and I've only seen about the first 30 minutes or so (which looks like it's before the controversial bit starts) before I have to go, so here are some thoughts.

First, Lustig is a real doctor and researcher, with an established publication record in real journals; see:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=lustig+rh

There is nothing particularly controversial about the first 30 minutes of the video. I was somewhat relieved to see that he is not pushing the hype that HFCS is more evil than regular sucrose, and he is correct in that the body metabolizes HFCS and sucrose nearly identically. He also correctly notes that we are consuming more calories than we used to, so no surprise there. Also there is nothing out of the mainstream with the recommendation that people should limit the amount of calories from sugar (whether HFCS or sucrose). And it is certainly true that glucose and fructose have different metabolic and physiologic processing.

Based on his intro, it sounds like he is going to make a case that fructose metabolism interferes with our ability to recognize satiety. I will have to watch the rest of the video and/or look at some of his papers, but so far I am going to suggest that what he has is a hypothesis rather than an explanation.

I'll try to post more after I have time to go over his material.

Nick

Thanks Nike.

He also has published a book. I have got a copy from our library today. I will read through it to see if that can help me understand.

William
2013-Oct-05, 10:53 PM
Per Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Lustig

So it's not yet determined if he's right or not.

Howdy,

Lustig claims the body responses differently to foods depending on their chemical nature, all calories are not the same as the chemical nature of foods are different. One example he gives which I was not aware of is the body's response to alcohol. He explained the biochemical and biological reason for liver damage and high blood pressure when excess alcohol is consumed. The body can handle a moderate amount of alcohol without damage, the question what is a moderate or a safe amount of alcholol or any other type of 'food' or additive such as salt.

The 60 minutes program notes that sugar or frucrose is added to almost all 'processed' foods, so the American food is super charged with sugar and frucrose, say four times (spagetti sauce, as compared to natural tomatoes) to ten times (candies and soda pop) more than occurs in nature). In his video he states the level of sugar and frucrose added to food and consumed in the typical American diet is super high, sufficient to unequivalically damage the body, to cause suffering and expensive health problems. The damage however he states occurs over a number of years.

That to me is astonishing. I had assumed that a calorie is a calorie, same as who ever wrote the Wikipedia article.

As I noted in my comment above Lustig has written a book. I just got a copy from our library. I will read through it perhaps that will clarify some of his claims.

profloater
2013-Oct-05, 11:00 PM
i started a thread about fructose a few weeks ago. I think you will find it is the gut flora that prefer fructose which make hormone like substances to affect our appetite, frutose is an isomer of glucose. Calories are certainly not alike, that's very old thinking.

Noclevername
2013-Oct-05, 11:03 PM
That to me is astonishing. I had assumed that a calorie is a calorie, same as who ever wrote the Wikipedia article.

The WP article says that the evidence is still not all in yet, not that "a calorie is a calorie". Big difference.

William
2013-Oct-06, 09:09 AM
The WP article says that the evidence is still not all in yet, not that "a calorie is a calorie". Big difference.

The Wikipedia article may need to be updated. The scientific literature does appear to support the assertion that all calories are not the same. There does appear to be specific issues with fructose which is odd as I see now looking at labels in our pantry that fructose appears to be added to most products. I guess that makes sense as fructose is the cheapest sweetener. The following is a list of 110 papers which Lustig is author or co-author. He does seem to be an expert on this subject. I see there are new papers written by other authors supporting the conclusion that there are special problems with fructose.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Lustig%20RH%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=20800122

Now I am starting to wonder how much sugar and fructose is in the American diet and how much is in let say soft drinks? I noticed there is a steady stream of young people carrying soft drinks from our local 7 eleven store. How much soda pop do young people consume? I am now starting to wonder how much it costs to treat people in America with dietary related disease.

I suppose as all sugar and fructose that is added to our food is discretionary and soft drink/candy/sweets consumption is also discretionary (no nutritional value food) and there is an epidemic of obesity in America and other countries that are starting to eat an American diet (55% of the Americans are now overweight, obese, or morbidly obese) the American Heart Association recommended in 2009 limiting the amount of added sugars to 6 teaspoons of sugar for women and 9 teaspoons for men. This recommendation is similar to the limit on salt consumption to 1500 milligrams. It appears currently there is no label warning comparing the maximum daily consumption of sugars (all types) and the amount of sugar in the food/beverage in question.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Lustig%20RH%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=20800122

http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/GettingHealthy/NutritionCenter/HealthyDietGoals/Sugars-and-Carbohydrates_UCM_303296_Article.jsp
How much is just right?
The American Heart Association (AHA) recommends limiting the amount of added sugars you consume to no more than half of your daily discretionary calories allowance. For most American women, that’s no more than 100 calories per day, or about 6 teaspoons of sugar. For men, it’s 150 calories per day, or about 9 teaspoons. The AHA recommendations focus on all added sugars, without singling out any particular types such as high-fructose corn syrup. For more detailed information and guidance on sugar intake limits, see the scientific statement in the August 2009 issue of Circulation, Journal of the American Heart Association.
Lustig’s recent paper.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20800122

Abstract
Rates of fructose consumption continue to rise nationwide and have been linked to rising rates of obesity, type 2 diabetes, and metabolic syndrome. Because obesity has been equated with addiction, and because of their evolutionary commonalities, we chose to examine the metabolic, hedonic, and societal similarities between fructose and its fermentation byproduct ethanol. Elucidation of fructose metabolism in liver and fructose action in brain demonstrate three parallelisms with ethanol. First, hepatic fructose metabolism is similar to ethanol, as they both serve as substrates for de novo lipogenesis, and in the process both promote hepatic insulin resistance, dyslipidemia, and hepatic steatosis. Second, fructosylation of proteins with resultant superoxide formation can result in hepatic inflammation similar to acetaldehyde, an intermediary metabolite of ethanol. Lastly, by stimulating the "hedonic pathway" of the brain both directly and indirectly, fructose creates habituation, and possibly dependence; also paralleling ethanol. Thus, fructose induces alterations in both hepatic metabolism and central nervous system energy signaling, leading to a "vicious cycle" of excessive consumption and disease consistent with metabolic syndrome. On a societal level, the treatment of fructose as a commodity exhibits market similarities to ethanol. Analogous to ethanol, societal efforts to reduce fructose consumption will likely be necessary to combat the obesity epidemic.

Other papers by other authors.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20368739
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22129639

Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) currently affects 20%-30% of adults and 10% of children in industrialized countries, and its prevalence is increasing worldwide. Although NAFLD is a benign form of liver dysfunction, it can proceed to a more serious condition, nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), which may lead to liver cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma. NAFLD is accompanied by obesity, metabolic syndrome and diabetes mellitus, and evidence suggests that fructose, a major caloric sweetener in the diet, plays a significant role in its pathogenesis. Inflammatory progression to NASH is proposed to occur by a two-hit process. The first "hit" is hepatic fat accumulation owing to increased hepatic de novo lipogenesis, inhibition of fatty acid beta oxidation, impaired triglyceride clearance and decreased very-low-density lipoprotein export. The mechanisms of the second "hit" are still largely unknown, but recent studies suggest several possibilities, including inflammation caused by oxidative stress associated with lipid peroxidation, cytokine activation, nitric oxide and reactive oxygen species, and endogenous toxins of fructose metabolites.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23482247


We aimed to investigate whether increased consumption of fructose is linked to the increased prevalence of fatty liver. The prevalence of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) is 3% and 20% in nonobese and obese subjects, respectively. Obesity is a low-grade chronic inflammatory condition and obesity-related cytokines such as interleukin-6, adiponectin, leptin, and tumor necrosis factor-α may play important roles in the development of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). Additionally, the prevalence of NASH associated with both cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma was reported to be high among patients with type 2 diabetes with or without obesity. Our research group previously showed that consumption of fructose is associated with adverse alterations of plasma lipid profiles and metabolic changes in mice, the American Lifestyle-Induced Obesity Syndrome model, which included consumption of a high-fructose corn syrup in amounts relevant to that consumed by some Americans. The observation reinforces the concerns about the role of fructose in the obesity epidemic. Increased availability of fructose (e.g., high-fructose corn syrup) increases not only abnormal glucose flux but also fructose metabolism in the hepatocyte. Thus, the anatomic position of the liver places it in a strategic buffering position for absorbed carbohydrates and amino acids. Fructose was previously accepted as a beneficial dietary component because it does not stimulate insulin secretion. However, since insulin signaling plays an important role in central mechanisms of NAFLD, this property of fructose may be undesirable. Fructose has a selective hepatic metabolism, and provokes a hepatic stress response involving activation of c-Jun N-terminal kinases and subsequent reduced hepatic insulin signaling. As high fat diet alone produces obesity, insulin resistance, and some degree of fatty liver with minimal inflammation and no fibrosis, the fast food diet which includes fructose and fats produces a gene expression signature of increased hepatic fibrosis, inflammation, endoplasmic reticulum stress and lipoapoptosis.

William
2013-Oct-06, 09:14 AM
i started a thread about fructose a few weeks ago. I think you will find it is the gut flora that prefer fructose which make hormone like substances to affect our appetite, frutose is an isomer of glucose. Calories are certainly not alike, that's very old thinking.

Howdy. Your comment is correct. I am reading through the literature to see if I can understand the science and the issues.

William
2013-Oct-06, 09:40 AM
The plot thickens. This is very interesting. I must admit my ideas concerning diet appear to be mostly myths.

There does appear to be a special problem with fructose. I have started reading Lustig’s book. His past clinical work was working with obese infants and adolescences. One of the first treatments he used is to eliminate fruit juice and soda pop from the diet. (Limit consumption of fluids to water and milk.) This is a March, 2013 paper he wrote on fructose.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23493539

Fructose: it's "alcohol without the buzz".
What do the Atkins Diet and the traditional Japanese diet have in common? The Atkins Diet is low in carbohydrate and usually high in fat; (William: I had heard there is evidence the Atkins diet is not healthy.) the Japanese diet is high in carbohydrate and usually low in fat. Yet both work to promote weight loss. One commonality of both diets is that they both eliminate the monosaccharide fructose. Sucrose (table sugar) and its synthetic sister high fructose corn syrup consist of 2 molecules, glucose and fructose. Glucose is the molecule that when polymerized forms starch, which has a high glycemic index, generates an insulin response, and is not particularly sweet. Fructose is found in fruit, does not generate an insulin response, and is very sweet. Fructose consumption has increased worldwide, paralleling the obesity and chronic metabolic disease pandemic. Sugar (i.e., fructose-containing mixtures) has been vilified by nutritionists for ages as a source of "empty calories," no different from any other empty calorie. However, fructose is unlike glucose. In the hypercaloric glycogen-replete state, intermediary metabolites from fructose metabolism overwhelm hepatic mitochondrial capacity, which promotes de novo lipogenesis and leads to hepatic insulin resistance, which drives chronic metabolic disease. Fructose also promotes reactive oxygen species formation, which leads to cellular dysfunction and aging, and promotes changes in the brain's reward system, which drives excessive consumption. Thus, fructose can exert detrimental health effects beyond its calories and in ways that mimic those of ethanol, its metabolic cousin. Indeed, the only distinction is that because fructose is not metabolized in the central nervous system, it does not exert the acute neuronal depression experienced by those imbibing ethanol. These metabolic and hedonic analogies argue that fructose should be thought of as "alcohol without the buzz."

profloater
2013-Oct-06, 09:50 AM
my thoughts were linked to fasting specifically to kill off or at least rebalance the gut flora to be a better set, but I found a paper which compared fasting to a restricted (no fructose) diet and both groups did equally well. It is indeed hard to avoid fructose in the modern diet, but of course not impossible. It does seem evidence is building to link fructose to obesity and indeed to weight gain with age. I have not yet found any food to act in the other direction!:)

William
2013-Oct-24, 05:42 PM
I finished reading Lustig’s book that discusses the biological reasons for Metabolic Syndrome (large segments of the population are getting sick due to excess sugar consumption which damages the organs of their body). The following are some key points I found interesting. (As I noted in my first comment, my ideas concerning nutrition were basically myths. I consumed too much fruit juice/fruit and alcohol (wine).)

Fruit juice contains more sugar, ounce per ounce than soda pop. Lustig’s advice and rules for his own family is to only eat whole fruit which reduces the amount of sugar consumed per week and lengthens the time for the natural sugar to be processed by the liver. Lustig notes that before modern farming/transportation systems and refrigeration the amount of fruit consumed by humans has limited to the relatively short period when fruit is ripe. Fruit is now available year round and many people consume fruit juice daily believing it is good for them.

Lustig treats adolescent and pre-adolescent obesity professionally; one of the common causes of obesity for young poor people particularly Latinos is caused by consuming subsidized fruit juice, the well meaning mothers believe fruit juice is healthier than consuming sugar soda pop which it is not.

Damage to the body due to excess sugar consumption accumulates with time and is dependent on dosage per day. There is a direct correlation of the instance of diabetes in populations and sugar consumption which makes sense for biological reasons (there is a casual reason - which Lustig explains in detail in his book referencing his own and other peer review papers - to explain the statistics). Sugar is addictive. Research supports the assertion that excess sugar and alcohol consumption damages the brain and is a major fact to explain the rise in dementia.

Sugar and alcohol damage the body in a similar manner.
Refined sugar consumption - unlike the consumption of complex whole grain carbohydrates such as beans or whole grain brown rice - particularly the consumption of sugary soda pop does not generate the natural biological feedback response of being full. Sugar consumption therefore in addition to damaging the liver, causing insulin resistance, atherosclerosis (damage to the protective cells in the circulatory system), diabetes, dementia, and so on also causes obesity which results in damage to the joints, reduces the ability to remain active and so on.

I has surprised that there are hundreds of peer reviewed papers that support Lustig’s assertion that sugar, just like alcohol is an addictive, dosage dependent toxic substance. Lastly Lustig cautions people concerning excess alcohol and sugar consumption and notes the organ damage and circulatory cell damage can occur without the symptom of obesity. Exercise does not protect against organ damage due to excess sugar and alcohol consumption, although it does have many other benefits as Lustig notes. The good news is that early liver damage (fatty liver deposits), insulin resistance, and damage to the cells of the circulatory system can be reversed in many cases if alcohol consumption is completely stopped and sugar consumption is reduced to natural sugars (no refined sugars) with moderate whole fruit consumption for a period of four to six weeks.

Refined Sugar Consumption Trends in Past 300 Years:
• In 1700, the average person consumed about 4 pounds of sugar per year.
• In 1800, the average person consumed about 18 pounds of sugar per year.
• In 1900, individual consumption had risen to 90 pounds of sugar per year.
• In 2009, more than 50 percent Americans consume 1/2 pound of sugar per day, which is 180 pounds of sugar per year (five times more than the amount of sugar consumed in 1800).
In 1890, obesity rate in the US for white males, age group 50′s only, were 3.4%. In 1975, the obesity rate in the US of all population was 15%. In 2009, 32% of Americans are obese. In 1893, there were fewer than 3 diabetes per 100,000 people in US.

Today, there are 8,000 diabetes per 100,000 people in US (roughly 1 in 10). Due to increased consumption of sugar particularly among young minority adults the incidence of diabetes is expected to increase from 1 in 10 in the US to 1 in 3. Type 2 diabetes was once a disease of middle age; now 30% of all new cases of type 2 diabetes in the US are adolescences, due to the extraordinary consumption of sugary drinks and fatty foods.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20368739
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22129639
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23482247
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16423593
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22351884
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19139390

profloater
2013-Oct-24, 07:06 PM
activity inluding just standing more improves glucose metabolism, fructose too probably but the hormone like substances made by fructose loving gut flora add a significant twist. They supress natural appetite reducing pathways. It's hard work avoiding fructose but it can be done if you cook your own food!

neilzero
2013-Oct-24, 08:38 PM
As some of the labels say, 10% real fruit juice. Most of what is sold as fruit juice is soda pop without the carbon dioxide. The ingedients in ReaLemon 100% fruit juice from concentrate are exactly the same as the ingredients in Badia brand lemon juice are (in order of abundance) water, lemon juice from concentrate, sodium benzoate, sodium metabisulfite, sodium sulfite, (preservatives) and lemon oil. I need two pairs of strong glasses to read that portion of both labels. Tentative conclusion = be scared of what stores sell us for food. On many labels the second, third and forth ingredients are some form of sugar. Pepsi Cola is the producer of Ocean Spray brand juices Neil

William
2013-Oct-25, 08:41 PM
I am still trying to understand how it is possible that 30% of the new cases of type 2 diabetes in the US are in adolescences.

Type 2 diabetes was once a disease that occurred only among the middle aged and aged. A doctor discussing the trend note that he would expect liver failure, blindness, limb amputation and so on will result due to extraordinary early onset of the disease.

Has anyone seen this illustration of the issue?

http://www.sugarstacks.com/beverages.htm
http://www.sugarstacks.com/candy.htm
http://www.sugarstacks.com/fruits.htm
http://www.sugarstacks.com/carrots.htm
http://www.sugarstacks.com/shakes.htm

Jens
2013-Oct-26, 03:55 AM
I
Type 2 diabetes was once a disease that occurred only among the middle aged and aged. A doctor discussing the trend note that he would expect liver failure, blindness, limb amputation and so on will result due to extraordinary early onset of the disease.


You mean kidney failure, right?

Jens
2013-Oct-26, 04:03 AM
With regard to the original post, I very much agree that over consumption of sugar is a big problem and that fruit juice is not really any better than coke, other than the fact that it probably has vitamins. But I don't know if I would really call sugar addictive. I think we are programmed to crave it, because we need it for energy. Alcohol is different. I have heard that we are attracted to the smell because it is associated with ripened fruit.

William
2013-Oct-26, 07:48 AM
You mean kidney failure, right?

Hi Jens,
Your comment is correct, the super high sugar content in the US and other countries that consume the same or higher amounts of sugar results in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease which causes kidney disease (1/3 of the people who have diabetes for more than 15 years develop kidney disease, so likely it is a concern that 30% of the new cases of type 2 diabetes are adolescents in the US). Recent studies are showing high sugar consumption is the leading cause of heart disease, rather than high fat consumption. Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease causes diabetes but does not normally cause liver failure.


Dr. Lustig recently took part in a study where they examined the associations between sugar consumption and diabetes in 175 countries (1). They found very clear associations, where each 150 kcal (about one can of soda) per day of sugar increased the prevalence of diabetes by 1.1%. To put this number in perspective, if all of the U.S. added one can of soda to their daily diet, almost 3.5 million more people would become diabetic. In this study, added sugar was the only part of the diet that correlated with diabetes when they adjusted for confounding factors.
http://www.diabetes.ca/diabetes-and-you/living/complications/kidney/

Diabetes and Kidney Disease
Kidney disease – known as nephropathy – is a serious complication associated with long-term diabetes. Over the years, high blood glucose levels and high blood pressure can damage the kidneys and prevent them from functioning properly or even cause them to fail completely. About one-third of people who have had diabetes for more than 15 years will develop kidney disease, but good diabetes management and regular screening can prevent or delay the loss of kidney function.


http://www.patient.co.uk/health/non-alcoholic-fatty-liver-disease


How Sugar Messes up Your Liver and Gives You Diabetes
Modern man is plagued with many diseases that you will not find in some “primitive” populations like modern hunter-gatherers. These include obesity, heart disease, some cancers and last but not least, type II diabetes… which has reached epidemic proportions in the past few decades and now afflicts about 300 million people worldwide. This disease is a common cause of early death, blindness, amputation and a severely decreased quality of life… and it is advancing rapidly, every single year. In the video above, Dr. Robert H. Lustig and Dr. Elissa S. Epel explain how excess sugar can mess up liver metabolism and ultimately lead to diabetes.


How Fructose Messes up Your Liver
Sugar is composed of two molecules… glucose and fructose. Glucose can be metabolized by every cell in the body and if we don’t get it from the diet, our bodies make it. However, fructose is different. The only organ that can metabolize sugar is the liver, because only the liver has a transporter for it (2). Athletes or highly active individuals can eat quite a bit of fructose without problems, because their livers will turn the fructose into glycogen – a storage form of glucose in the liver. However, when someone’s liver is already full of glycogen (which is true of most people), the fructose will be turned into fat (3). Some of the fat gets shipped out as blood triglycerides while part of it remains in the liver, contributing to non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (4, 5).

William
2013-Oct-26, 08:00 AM
With regard to the original post, I very much agree that over consumption of sugar is a big problem and that fruit juice is not really any better than coke, other than the fact that it probably has vitamins. But I don't know if I would really call sugar addictive. I think we are programmed to crave it, because we need it for energy. Alcohol is different. I have heard that we are attracted to the smell because it is associated with ripened fruit.

Hi Jens,

The research indicates that sugar consumption is addicative, particularly consumption of sugar soda pops which is helped by the adding of caffine to the sugary pop. Many people in the US drink one or more sugar soda pops per day.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/netherlands/10314705/Sugar-is-addictive-and-the-most-dangerous-drug-of-the-times.html

Sugar is 'addictive and the most dangerous drug of the times'

Soft drinks should carry tobacco-style warnings that sugar is highly addictive and dangerous, a senior Dutch health official has warned.
Paul van der Velpen, the head of Amsterdam's health service.... ....."Just like alcohol and tobacco, sugar is actually a drug. There is an important role for government. The use of sugar should be discouraged. And users should be made aware of the dangers," he wrote on an official public health website.

Mr Van der Velpen cites research claiming that sugar, unlike fat or other foods, interferes with the body's appetite creating an insatiable desire to carry on eating, an effect he accuses the food industry of using to increase consumption of their products.
"Sugar upsets that mechanism. Whoever uses sugar wants more and more, even when they are no longer hungry. Give someone eggs and he'll stop eating at any given time. Give him cookies and he eats on even though his stomach is painful," he argued.

profloater
2013-Oct-26, 12:06 PM
I think addictive is a confusing term in many cases being an exaggeration of habit forming. Is craving necessarily an addiction? Habits are hard to break but do not involve actual withdrawal symptoms. You can give up sugar either by diet or fasting with no withdrawal whatever, just feeling hungry does not count, in my book, as withdrawal symptoms. However eating sugars seems to be very habit forming and it does seem fructose leads to over eating and then to over weight. I agree there should be much more education about this single aspect of diet.

William
2014-Feb-04, 10:16 AM
The research confirms that sugar consumption does not just make us fat, it causes a list of diseases.

http://news.yahoo.com/sugar-tied-fatal-heart-woes-soda-39-culprit-212233101.html

JAMA Internal Medicine. Published online February 03, 2014
http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1819571


New Unsweetened Truths About Sugar
We are in the midst of a paradigm shift in research on the health effects of sugar, one fueled by extremely high rates of added sugar overconsumption in the American public. By “added sugar overconsumption,” we refer to a total daily consumption of sugars added to products during manufacturing (ie, not naturally occurring sugars, as in fresh fruit) in excess of dietary limits recommended by expert panels. Past concerns revolved around obesity and dental caries as the main health hazards. Overconsumption of added sugars has long been associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD).1 However, under the old paradigm, it was assumed to be a marker for unhealthy diet or obesity.2 The new paradigm views sugar overconsumption as an independent risk factor in CVD as well as many other chronic diseases, including diabetes mellitus, liver cirrhosis, and dementia—all linked to metabolic perturbations involving dyslipidemia, hypertension, and insulin resistance.3 The new paradigm hypothesizes that sugar has adverse health effects above any purported role as “empty calories” promoting obesity. Too much sugar does not just make us fat; it can also make us sick.


… As discussed by Yang et al, (5) ….. the American Heart Association recommends no more than 25 g/d for men and 38 g/d for men, amounting to 5% and 7.5%, respectively, of a 2000-calorie daily diet. (William: FDA’s current recommended limit for sugar consumption is 25% of daily caloric intake which is absurdly high based on the science. As noted below, there is no recommended limit for sugar consumption on nutritional labeling. Note sugar is added to almost all American processed food. The ubiquitous sugary drinks account for 40% of the US sugar consumption.)



…The analysis by Yang et al first speaks to the current debate over how much added sugar is safe to consume. In contrast to sodium, trans fats, and other dietary additives used to increase palatability and shelf life of processed foods, the US government provides no dietary limit for added sugar. (William: Nutritional summary label provided on foods list the amount of sugar in grams but does not provide a percentage of maximum daily recommended limit; which provide a guide to how much is safe to consume vs the amount in sugar in the product in question.)



… Yang et al inform this debate by the showing that the risk of Cardiovascular Disease (CVD) mortality becomes elevated once added sugar intake surpasses 15% of daily calories – equivalent to drinking one 20 – ounce Mountain Dew soda in a 2000 – calories daily diet. From there, the risk rises exponentially as a function of increased sugar intake, peaking with a 4 – fold increase of CVD death for individuals who consume one-third of more of daily added sugar.

profloater
2014-Feb-09, 01:23 PM
Sugar sure gets a bad press but many cited articles do not differentiate fructose from glucose, same molecule differet isomer,, different gut flora, different metabolic pathways. I believe it would be helpful to tease out the bad news and at the moment it seems good advice is to limit fructose in particular. More research required. Some say fruit should be eaten first per day and not thereafter, to speed metabolism of fructose but I do not know if this has been tested in a study. Avoiding fructose as additive to processed food seems a good idea especially for children.

molesworth
2014-Feb-09, 04:28 PM
Sugar sure gets a bad press but many cited articles do not differentiate fructose from glucose, same molecule differet isomer,, different gut flora, different metabolic pathways. I believe it would be helpful to tease out the bad news and at the moment it seems good advice is to limit fructose in particular. More research required. Some say fruit should be eaten first per day and not thereafter, to speed metabolism of fructose but I do not know if this has been tested in a study. Avoiding fructose as additive to processed food seems a good idea especially for children.

Just noticed this thread... There was an interesting programme in the BBC "Horizon" series a couple of weeks ago - Sugar v Fat - what's worse? (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03t8r4h) looking at the effects of a high sugar, low fat diet versus high fat, low sugar.

Although not what could be called a scientifically rigorous study, it involved twins, both doctors, who were put on those two diets, and monitored over a month of similar activity - work, play, exercise etc. The results were certainly interesting and somewhat unexpected.

The twin on the high fat, low sugar diet lost more weight, but had burnt more muscle than fat, and in fact his percentage of body fat had increased. The other twin had lost weight, but not as much. Interestingly his blood sugar levels weren't higher than at the start, despite a diet high in sugars and cabohydrates, and his ability to metabolise them, and to produce and use insulin had improved.

The twin on the high fat, low sugar diet had a diminished ability to metabolise sugars and carbs, his insulin production had dropped, and in fact one of the supervising doctors said he was "borderline diabetic".

There was a brief conversation with Dr. Lustig early in the programme, where he called sugar "a poison", but I haven't heard of any follow-up discussion on the programmes findings. It would ceratinly be interesting to hear his response :-)

As I said, not really a proper study, but certainly worth watching. One of the main messages I got from it was that any extreme, "fad" diet is likely to be bad for you, and that diets with moderate amounts of sugars and carbs are in fact better for you than those without, and are very unlikely to increase the risk of diabetes...

profloater
2014-Feb-09, 04:47 PM
Since gut flora is involved and takes a few days to adjust to a new diet, it would be interesting to see a longer study, it seems the old advice, eat a varied mixed diet is still true. We still need to know more about replacing fats with sugars, especially fructose, and we are just beginning to see reports heading towards "good bacteria" not just the hyped ones in yoghurt. Since the evidence for both mental and physical changes from gut flora bio chemistry, it could be a major health improvement. of course it might mean fecal transplants to work effectively, ;)

William
2014-Feb-10, 02:45 AM
I re-watch Lustig`s lecture – “Sugar the Bitter truth”. The pre-amble is a bit long and can be skipped, if you are not interested in the history of sugar consumption and dietary research.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

Lustig’s lecture from 42 minutes to 76 minutes explains the microbiological reactions in detail for the body to consume a serving of Ethanol (say a beer or a shot of spirits), two slices of white bread, and a serving of sugary pop.
That portion of the lecture also explains why ethanol and fructose when consumed at levels which are commonly consumed by many Americans is toxic (damages the body): causes damage to the liver, atherosclerosis, and high blood pressure.
That section should be explained in detail as a health warning at stores selling alcohol and stores selling sugary foods and beverages. It really is astonishing it has taken this long for the research to be completed and communicated to the public.



Robert H. Lustig, MD, UCSF Professor of Pediatrics in the Division of Endocrinology, explores the damage caused by sugary foods.

The following is a list of research papers (106) where Lustig is an author or a co-author.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=lustig+rh
For example:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22297952
Nature. 2012 Feb 1;482(7383):27-9. doi: 10.1038/482027a.
Public health: The toxic truth about sugar

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23493539

(Link to free access article)

http://advances.nutrition.org/content/4/2/226.full.pdf+html


Adv Nutr. 2013 Mar 1;4(2):226-35. doi: 10.3945/an.112.002998.
Fructose: it's "alcohol without the buzz".

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3715098/
Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences
(Free access article)
Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2013 April; 1281(1): 123–140.
What is metabolic syndrome, and why are children getting it?

William
2014-Feb-10, 05:14 PM
This is an interesting topic. I am gradually starting to get my head around the key questions and the most recent data/analysis and issues.

- What is ‘metabolic syndrome’?
-Why has there been an epidemic rise in the diseases that are collectively called ‘metabolic syndrome’?
- What is the evidence and logical reasoning to support the assertion that diet is causing metabolic syndrome? Are there any other suspects?
- What are the substances in the Western diet that are causing metabolic syndrome? How does the consumption of those substances damage the body?
-How high is the level of the disease causing substances in the Western diet verses the safe level?
-How would the Western diet need to change to eliminate the majority of the metabolic syndrome diseases? How much difference would a change in diet make?

This review article (2013) written by Lustig is a summary of the scientific basis for his 2008 (lecture, Sugar the Bitter Truth). The information in the 2013 review article is also included in his 2012 Nature article ‘Public health: The toxic truth about sugar’.
More detailed analysis on specific subjects written for specialists and for publishing in specialist journals is included in other papers in which Lustig is a co-author (my comment above has a link to 101 papers in which Lustig is an author or co-author).

There is now a global epidemic of ‘metabolic syndrome’ which is the name given for a cluster of related dietary caused diseases which is by far the number one health care problem in the developed world (The US is ground zero for the metabolic syndrome diseases) and is rapidly becoming the number one health care problem in the developing world as the developing world switches to the so called ‘Western’ diet.

This article compares how the human body processes Alcohol (Ethanol) to how the body processes fructose and how both substances at high levels are toxic to the body (causes damage to the body). The article shows the consumption of Alcohol and Fructose damages the body in similar ways. As Lustig notes the damage to the body is not only that the person gets fatter. There is damage to the body at the cellular and organ level. Exercise cannot protect or reverse damage at a cellular and organ level, that is caused by consumption at toxic levels.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23493539

(Link to free access article)

http://advances.nutrition.org/content/4/2/226.full.pdf+html


Adv Nutr. 2013 Mar 1;4(2):226-35. doi: 10.3945/an.112.002998.

Fructose: it's "alcohol without the buzz".
...We are in the midst of a global pandemic of chronic metabolic disease, 30 y in the making. The UN Secretary General in 2011 declared that metabolic syndrome (type 2 diabetes, hypertension, dyslipidemia, heart disease) and other noncommunicable diseases (e.g., cancer, dementia) are now a greater threat to both the developed and developing worlds than is acute infectious disease, including HIV (1). Most people blame obesity as the driver of these other diseases; however, 20% of obese subjects are metabolically normal, whereas as many as 40% of normal-weight people manifest specific components of metabolic syndrome (2–4). Obesity is not the cause of metabolic syndrome; rather, it is a marker for the metabolic dysfunction that is occurring worldwide. Furthermore, there are now >30% more obese people on the planet than those who are malnourished. Two decades ago, it was the opposite. Is it really possible, even in the most impoverished countries, that so many people became gluttons and sloths in such a short period of time?



....A little fructose improves insulin secretion Studies of ethanol use show that small doses are healthy because
ethanol increases HDL and improves insulin sensitivity and longevity (99). Like alcohol, a small dose of fructose
has been shown in some studies to have a beneficial effect on insulin secretion (100). The negative effects of fructose, just like alcohol, are dose dependent. For alcohol, we have empirical evidence that in most people, a maximum dose of 50 g/d is the threshold for toxicity. By analogy, that is likely the threshold for fructose as well. The problem is that the current average adult fructose consumption is 51 g/d (101). So the levels of half of all adults are likely above the threshold for fructose toxicity, and adolescents currently average 75 g/d.

profloater
2014-Feb-10, 05:37 PM
Ok at 50 g /day alcohol, say wine at 12% vol 480 ml but fork sugary drinks you are probably over with one can,!

William
2014-Feb-10, 06:55 PM
Ok at 50 g /day alcohol, say wine at 12% vol 480 ml but fork sugary drinks you are probably over with one can,!

I had exactly the same thought. As both alcohol and sugar damage the liver, cause type 2 diabetes, cause high blood pressure, and damage the body at a cellular level (including the brain) the detrimental effects are additive.

50 g/day is a very large amount of alcohol consumption. The recommended daily alcohol limit given by country health departments ranges from 20g/day to 40g/day (a maximum of two to three, 12 ounce beers per day 5% alcohol) with a maximum limit per week of roughly 10 to 14 beers. It appears the daily recommended maximum consumption limits for alcohol accepts some negative affects as they are written for people how like to drink and are written taking the interests of the alcohol industry, bars, restaurants and so on into the mix. There is a recommendation of three to four weeks with no alcohol a couple of times a year to allow the liver to repair itself. That should be done regardless of the amount of alcohol consumption as it helps to identify and avoid addiction problems, in addition to allowing the liver to repair itself from the weekly damage.

I was surprised when I read through Lustig's papers how much damage both fructose and ethanol do to the body.

Drastically reducing sugar consumption appears to be a no brainer. Less is better. For most men reducing sugar consumption to almost zero is not a problem, except for the practical problem that sugar has been added to almost every convenience food we purchase and a sugar fix is included with almost every social meal. Reducing sugar consumption is more difficult for most women.

The health benefits of alcohol consumption are achieved with only 6 ounces of beer (5%) per day. It appears any more consumption of alcohol beyond that damages the body. As most people (including me) drink alcohol for the buzz and social reasons, absence or limiting daily consumption to 6 ounces of beer is a tough proposition. There are so many temptations also such as all inclusive resorts.

The damage to the body is quite evident however. Check out the older people in the liquor store who are purchasing their weekly fix. Now that I am starting to understand the science I am finding it bothers me to look around at who is purchasing liquor at the liquor store.

profloater
2014-Feb-10, 07:15 PM
But for ethanol the individual variation must count, some do not make much ethanase and get tiddly after one glass, while others can take more. The unresolved ethanol circulating must be an issue, which is why binge drinking is so bad. So know your limits. With fructose it is a different pathway in the liver, so more insidious I believe and unnecessary too.

William
2014-Feb-11, 05:00 PM
But for ethanol the individual variation must count, some do not make much ethanase and get tiddly after one glass, while others can take more. The unresolved ethanol circulating must be an issue, which is why binge drinking is so bad. So know your limits. With fructose it is a different pathway in the liver, so more insidious I believe and unnecessary too.

Just as I suspected the alleged beneficial affects of low to moderate alcohol consumption is for 1 to 7 drinks per week (I found three peer reviewed studies each peer reviewed study noted the beneficial affects in reduced incident in cardiovascular deaths and reduced inflammation was for ‘light’ to ‘moderate’ alcohol consumption which they all defined to be 1 to 7 drinks per week).

The recommended maximum daily consumption of alcohol provided by the US department of health is 1 to 2 drinks per day.

Based on the data and the basic science as to how alcohol consumption affects the liver and the body, I am thinking I will limit alcohol consumption to a maximum of 2 drinks per day and 6 drinks per week and will include two periods of no alcohol consumption per year. The New Zealand recommendation of at least two alcohol free days per week makes sense to provide the liver time to do repairs every week (note that does not remove accumulated liver fat unless there is caloric reduction.)

As I noted there is a recommendation of a period of three to four weeks alcohol free (one or two times per year) to provide the liver time for repairs and to remove accumulated liver fat. To remove liver fat requires periods of caloric reduction and moderate exercise during the three to four week period of no alcohol consumption which causes the body to burn fat (including fat that is stored in the liver due to the consumption of fructose and ethanol which is the health problem). If there is no caloric reduction and moderate exercise the fat stays in the body and in the liver.

Levels of Alcohol consumption that has some benefits.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16864759
Impact of inflammation on the relationship among alcohol consumption, mortality, and cardiac events: the health, aging, and body composition study.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14769682


METHODS AND RESULTS:
Data are from year 1 of the Health, Aging, and Body Composition study, a biracial cohort of 3075 well-functioning men and women aged 70 to 79 years, living in Memphis, Tenn, and Pittsburgh, Pa. The analysis included 2574 persons (51.2% women; 40.1% black) with complete data. After adjustment for age, race, smoking status, history of diabetes, history of cardiovascular disease, physical activity, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, antiinflammatory medications, statins, and total fat mass, alcohol intake showed a J-shaped relationship with mean IL-6 (P for quadratic term <0.001) and CRP (P=0.014) levels. The association was consistent in both men and women. Compared with subjects who consumed 1 to 7 drinks per week, those who never drank had an increased likelihood of having high levels of both IL-6 and CRP, as did those who drank 8 or more drinks per week. We found no relationship between alcohol intake and levels of TNF-alpha and PAI-1 (P=0.137 and 0.08, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS:
In well-functioning older persons, light alcohol consumption is associated with lower levels of IL-6 and CRP. These results might suggest an additional biological explanation to the epidemiological link between moderate alcohol consumption and cardiovascular events.
Recommended maximum alcohol consumption by health department of the country in question.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recommended_maximum_intake_of_alcoholic_beverages

These countries recommend a weekly limit, but intake on a particular day may be higher than one-seventh of the weekly amount.
• Canada: 2/day; 14/week (@13.6g = 27.2g/day, 190g/week)[3][22]
• Hong Kong: 3–4/day; 21/week (glass of wine or a pint of beer)
• New Zealand: To reduce long-term health risks - 3/day (30g/day); 15/week (150g/week); At least two alcohol-free days every week[13] To reduce risk of injury per occasion - 5 standard drinks (50g) on any single occasion.[13]
• USA: 1-2 units/day (14–28g/day), not to exceed 14 units/week (196g/week)[20]
Therefore, these countries recommend limits for men in the range 27.2–32g per day and 168–210g per week.

William
2014-Feb-12, 10:11 AM
William: This review paper explains how consuming a sugary drink causes damage to the body. The person does not just get fatter due to the consumption of sugary food or sugary beverages, they become sicker, the consumption of sugary pops and sugary food, leads to metabolic syndrome which leads to type 2 diabetes, added factor for hypertension, added factor for atherosclerosis, and so on. The damage is accumulative and similar to the damage due to regular consumption of alcohol or binge drinking for people such as adolescents that consume super sized sugary pops.

Sugary pop has absolutely no nutritional value. Sugar drinks due to the biochemistry do not make a person feel full (satiability) so drinking a sugary pop with a meal results in the person consuming more calories.

A 12 ounce can of the typical sugary pop contains 9 teaspoons of sugar which is the maximum amount of recommended total added sugar by the American heart association for men and is 3 teaspoons more that the recommended sugar consumption for women. The problem is sugar has been added to almost every convenience food. The daily average US sugar consumption is 22 teaspoons of sugar.

Comments:
1) 9 teaspoons of sugar in a 12 ounce beverage is an astonishing amount of sugar. Think of adding 9 teaspoons of sugar to a cup of coffee. The reason sugary pop does not taste too sugary is phosphoric acid is added as a standard ingredient which tastes bitter to hide the incredible amount of sugar in the beverage and to hide the salt that is added to the sugary pop. The sugar, salt, and caffeine in the sugary pop make the sugary pop addictive.

2) The amount of sugar in a super sized sugar beverage is dangerous, similar to binge drinking. The issue is similar to drinking a tumbler of Whiskey. Total daily dosage and rate of intake.
3) The so called energy drinks have the same problem as the sugary pops except they have more caffeine. The so called sports drinks (over weight young boys are the main consumers not knowledgeable athletes) are sugary pop without the fizz.
Lustig`s Caution:
Fruit juice has more sugar per ounce than pop. Lustig and other experts in that field, advise that fruit should only be consumed whole in moderate amounts. When a moderate amount of whole fruit (a single small apple, a single small orange or a handful of berries all per day) is consumed there is significantly less fructose per serving and there is fiber which reduces the speed that the fructose hits the liver and there are beneficial antioxins in the fruit particularly in the outer skin of fruits such as apples or berries.


http://www.sugarstacks.com/beverages.htm
http://www.sugarstacks.com/candy.htm
http://www.sugarstacks.com/fruits.htm

http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/Gettin...96_Article.jsp
How much is just right?
The American Heart Association (AHA) recommends limiting the amount of added sugars you consume to no more than half of your daily discretionary calories allowance. For most American women, that’s no more than 100 calories per day, or about 6 teaspoons of sugar. For men, it’s 150 calories per day, or about 9 teaspoons. The AHA recommendations focus on all added sugars, without singling out any particular types such as high-fructose corn syrup. For more detailed information and guidance on sugar intake limits, see the scientific statement in the August 2009 issue of Circulation, Journal of the American Heart Association.
Soft drinks consumption and nonalcoholic fatty liver
Disease by
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2880768/pdf/WJG-16-2579.pdf
World Journal of Gastroenterol 2010 June 7

Soft drinks consumption and nonalcoholic fatty liver
Disease by William Nseir, Fares Nassar, Nimer Assy
A global change in dietary habits has occurred over the last few decades resulting from the introduction of sweeteners such as fructose and sucrose by the food industries. For example, regular soft drinks (SD) and fruit drinks, major sources of high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) or sugar, have increased from 3.9% of the total energy intake in 1977 to 9.2% of the total energy intake in 2001[8]. Worldwide, SD are the leading cause of added sugar. Recent evidence suggests an association between the intake of sugar sweetened SD and the risk of obesity and diabetes resulting from large amounts of HFCS used in their manufacture, which raises blood glucose similar to sucrose[9]. In addition, diet SD contain aspartame sweetener and caramel coloring, which are rich in advanced glycation end products that potentially increase insulin resistance and inflammation[10,11].


...Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is a significant health problem affecting 20%-30% of the adult population[1]. NAFLD can progress to nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), a fatty liver with hepatitis. This form of liver injury carries a 20%-50% risk for progressive fibrosis, 30% risk for cirrhosis, and 5% risk for hepato- cellular carcinoma[2-4].

....The rising incidence of obesity in today’s generation is associated with many health complications in addition to NAFLD[5,6]. These include cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, and hypertension. This constellation is recognized as metabolic syndrome. 70% of patients with fatty liver have metabolic syndrome and 30% of patients with metabolic syndrome have fatty liver[7] (Figure 1).



PATHOPHYSIOLOGY OF NAFLD (William: Non Fatty Liver Disease, see paper for details, very clear explanation of the mechanisms)
FRUCTOSE AND INSULIN RESISTANCE (William: See paper for details)
FRUCTOSE AND DIABETES MELLITUS (William: How fructose damages the liver and causes type 2 diabetes)
FRUCTOSE AND NAFLD

Patients on a high fructose or sucrose diet show a greater uric acid response to a bolus of fructose[70,71] consistent with the upregulation of KHK activity. Finally, uric acid levels can predict the development of NAFLD[72]. There is also increasing evidence that the rise in uric acid may also have a potential role in causing features of the metabolic syndrome[73], in part by the ability of uric acid to deplete endothelial nitric oxide levels[74] and by activating adipocytes[68]. What does fructose become in our liver? Fructose becomes free fatty acids (the building blocks of all lipids), becomes VLDL lipoproteins and TGs (the nasty lipids most associated with cardiovascular disease), and becomes uric acid (oxidative stress, vascular inflammation, Figure 5).



CONCLUSION
The use of sweeteners has increased considerably worldwide and soft drink beverages seem to be a major contributor for obesity, diabetes mellitus, hyperlipidemia, insulin resistance, hypertension, metabolic syndrome, and cardiovascular disease. In this review we sought to focus attention on the impact of soft drinks on the accumulation of fat in the liver. This has significant clinical implications, as the presence of NAFLD correlates strongly with diabetes, cardiovascular disease and diffuse atherosclerosis.

profloater
2014-Feb-12, 01:40 PM
Ok I feel it will be back to egg and chips for me, that's fries in USA, no more fructose. I hope you do not find any problems with fries, the ones cooked Belgian style are especially good. I am not so sure about the reformed ones from powder used in many fast foods. Now diet sodas, no fructose but aspartamine and other sweeteners. probably best to stick to tea, the traditional beverage for egg and chips.