Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

New Study on the Effects of Fructose and Glucose on Liver Triacylglycerol

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • New Study on the Effects of Fructose and Glucose on Liver Triacylglycerol

    No Difference Between High-Fructose and High-Glucose Diets on Liver Triacylglycerol or Biochemistry in Healthy Overweight Men

    Don't have access to the full text unfortunately, but here's the conclusion:

    "In the isocaloric period, overweight men on neither a high-fructose nor a high-glucose diet developed any significant changes in hepatic concentration of TAGs or serum levels of liver enzymes. However, in the hypercaloric period both high-fructose and high-glucose diets produced significant increases in these parameters without any significant difference between the 2 groups. This indicates an energy-mediated, rather than specific macronutrient-mediated effect."

    So high fructose/high glucose diets showed to have no effect on liver TAG in hypocaloric conditions (even at stupidly high amounts of fructose/glucose), while hypercaloric conditions did.

    Overeating = problems. Fructose/glucose = not so much of a problem.
    My nutrition/fitness/critical thinking blog:

  • #2
    So in the design section in the link above it says the hi fructose/glucose amount was 25% energy...how many carbs in grams you reckon that is? just wondering....doesn't sound like a lot of carbs.
    Last edited by rockrunner; 07-20-2013, 03:29 PM.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by rockrunner View Post
      So in the design section in the link above it says the hi fructose/glucose amount was 25% energy...how many carbs in grams you reckon that is? just wondering....doesn't sound like a lot of carbs.
      Not just carbs, pure fructose and pure glucose (156 grams). This is more fructose/glucose than most people ever eat in a day, yet it still showed no negative effects on liver TAG in hypocaloric conditions. Very interesting considering the fact that some like to say that fructose directly contributes to fatty liver disease.
      My nutrition/fitness/critical thinking blog:

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by jakejoh10 View Post
        Not just carbs, pure fructose and pure glucose (156 grams). This is more fructose/glucose than most people ever eat in a day, yet it still showed no negative effects on liver TAG in hypocaloric conditions. Very interesting considering the fact that some like to say that fructose directly contributes to fatty liver disease.
        156 grams would be in the upper end of Mark's PB carb curve...I think not high carb of either type...that seems like a safe level.

        Comment


        • #5
          Not for nothing, but I find the actual Results more interesting than their conclusions:

          Me in bold...

          Results:

          "During the isocaloric period of the study, both groups had stable body weights and concentrations of TAG in liver, serum, and soleus muscle. No suprises

          The high-fructose diet produced an increase of 2252 μmol/L in serum level of uric acid, whereas the high-glucose diet led to a reduction of 2325 μmol/L (P<.01). I find this quite significant, especially for those with a predisposition to gout, and for the association of UA and metabolic syndrome. And these changes ARE during the isocaloric stage.

          The high-fructose diet also produced an increase of 0.80.9 in the homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance, whereas the high-glucose diet produced an increase of only 0.10.7 (P=.03). I think this could be quite important. Who knows with such a small sample size though. Fits with the above though and again are during the isocaloric stage.

          During the hypercaloric period, participants in the high-fructose and high-glucose groups had similar increases in weight (1.01.4 kg vs 0.61.0 kg; P=.29) and absolute concentration of TAG in liver (1.702.6% vs 2.052.9%; P=.73) and serum (0.360.75 mmol/L vs 0.330.38 mmol/L; P=.91), and similar results in biochemical assays of liver function. Body weight changes were associated with changes in liver biochemistry and concentration of TAGs." So TAG in liver and serum are not where the differences are, but there are obviously significant differences IMO

          I wish scientist would stick to titling their studies based on what was assessed rather than based on their own "conclusions" of what they find most significant. For instance should someone be searching for a study on the changes a mostly glucose vs fructose diet have on uric acid levels this title makes it unlikely that you will find the data. In the end very interesting results, but the scientist actually play it down with their conclusions.

          In light of the above results does this concern you now though Elevated Serum Uric Acid Predicts Metabolic Syndrome in Adolescents - NEJM Journal Watch
          Last edited by Neckhammer; 07-20-2013, 05:30 PM.

          Comment


          • #6
            From the Results:
            The high-fructose diet produced an increase of 2252 μmol/L in serum level of uric acid, whereas the high-glucose diet led to a reduction of 2325 μmol/L (P<.01). The high-fructose diet also produced an increase of 0.80.9 in the homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance, whereas the high-glucose diet produced an increase of only 0.10.7 (P=.03).
            So there were some definite differences, favouring glucose over fructose, even though the feeding periods were only two weeks. Hard to say that there will be no long term difference in contribution to NAFLD on this basis. Can say that fructose may increase risk of gout and of metabolic syndrome
            Four years Primal with influences from Jaminet & Shanahan and a focus on being anti-inflammatory. Using Primal to treat CVD and prevent stents from blocking free of drugs.

            Eat creatures nose-to-tail (animal, fowl, fish, crustacea, molluscs), a large variety of vegetables (raw, cooked and fermented, including safe starches), dairy (cheese & yoghurt), occasional fruit, cocoa, turmeric & red wine

            Comment


            • #7
              Neckhammer and Peril: I agree with what both of you are saying, and this is by no means conclusive. I just felt that I should post it to provide somewhat of a counter to the fructose alarmism that has been going around as a results of Dr. Lustig's presentation.

              And yeah, like many studies, this one definitely has it's flaws (including the short feeding period) and the conclusion differs a bit from what the results show, which is a bit misleading. Neckhammer, that's a really interesting study and one I will look into in a bit, thanks for sharing.
              My nutrition/fitness/critical thinking blog:

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by jakejoh10 View Post
                Neckhammer and Peril: I agree with what both of you are saying, and this is by no means conclusive. I just felt that I should post it to provide somewhat of a counter to the fructose alarmism that has been going around as a results of Dr. Lustig's presentation.

                And yeah, like many studies, this one definitely has it's flaws (including the short feeding period) and the conclusion differs a bit from what the results show, which is a bit misleading. Neckhammer, that's a really interesting study and one I will look into in a bit, thanks for sharing.
                No problem. Its weakness is probably that its a population type study rather than a double blind clinical trial. So yes we can still call correlation may not mean causation based on just this one trial, but I think it draws on the UA hypothesis from previous experiments. I'll actually have to dig up some of that stuff.

                Comment


                • #9
                  I have no problem in eating fructose found naturally in fruit and some veg.

                  I won't eat it when extracted and processed then added to fake foods ( along with the other junk they add).

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by jakejoh10 View Post
                    Neckhammer and Peril: I agree with what both of you are saying, and this is by no means conclusive. I just felt that I should post it to provide somewhat of a counter to the fructose alarmism that has been going around as a results of Dr. Lustig's presentation.

                    And yeah, like many studies, this one definitely has it's flaws (including the short feeding period) and the conclusion differs a bit from what the results show, which is a bit misleading. Neckhammer, that's a really interesting study and one I will look into in a bit, thanks for sharing.
                    Yeah, that was my take from it too. Basically, the Lustig/Sugar thing is hyperbole.
                    Disclaimer: I eat 'meat and vegetables' ala Primal, although I don't agree with the carb curve. I like Perfect Health Diet and WAPF Lactofermentation a lot.

                    Griff's cholesterol primer
                    5,000 Cal Fat <> 5,000 Cal Carbs
                    Winterbike: What I eat every day is what other people eat to treat themselves.
                    TQP: I find for me that nutrition is much more important than what I do in the gym.
                    bloodorchid is always right

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Neckhammer View Post
                      The high-fructose diet produced an increase of 2252 μmol/L in serum level of uric acid, whereas the high-glucose diet led to a reduction of 2325 μmol/L (P<.01).
                      In the physical sciences test results like these would be laughed out of print, and out of research. I realize medical or life sciences are different, but I can't get my mind away from numbers like - 22+/-52, where the variance is larger, or even double, the mean, or the average result. Such a result is worse than meaningless. Either the test is ridiculous or the researchers are studying the wrong chemicals or processes.

                      I'm sure you can plug such numbers into statistics calculations but so what can that produce.
                      "When the search for truth is confused with political advocacy, the pursuit of knowledge is reduced to the quest for power." - Alston Chase

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        +1

                        1.01.4 kg at a p value of 0.29 is worth discussing?
                        Few but ripe.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Cryptocode View Post
                          In the physical sciences test results like these would be laughed out of print, and out of research. I realize medical or life sciences are different, but I can't get my mind away from numbers like - 22+/-52, where the variance is larger, or even double, the mean, or the average result. Such a result is worse than meaningless. Either the test is ridiculous or the researchers are studying the wrong chemicals or processes.

                          I'm sure you can plug such numbers into statistics calculations but so what can that produce.
                          I was interested enough to look into this further. Statistics was never a subject I enjoyed, but in my math studies I was required to take 2 courses of it, and that is the extent of my knowledge of it. But I remember well the basic 'laws' or rules of operations. The result 22 +- 52 means that a 'right' or meaningful test result is within the range of +74 to -30.

                          Since a result of -30 is 'impossible', that is to say that a test on a live human could not possibly produce such a number, then this number occurs only because of the statistical design and operations performed on the collected data.

                          Further, I find, that this is commonly accepted practice today, and for some years in the past, to simply delete all such 'impossible' results from the statistical conclusions. (But they continue to believe that conclusions thus drawn are valid.)

                          NO, NO, NO, NO! Do you hear me screaming at them. Invalid! Not valid EVER.

                          Worse, this is now commonly accepted practice in all medical tests.
                          Last edited by Cryptocode; 08-17-2013, 11:45 AM.
                          "When the search for truth is confused with political advocacy, the pursuit of knowledge is reduced to the quest for power." - Alston Chase

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X