MP: Fructose alters hundreds of brain genes, which can lead to a wide range of diseases

[China]

Fructose alters hundreds of brain genes, which can lead to a wide range of diseases

 

A range of diseases—from diabetes to cardiovascular disease, and from Alzheimer's disease to attention deficit hyperactivity disorder—are linked to changes to genes in the brain. A new study by UCLA life scientists has found that hundreds of those genes can be damaged by fructose, a sugar that's common in the Western diet, in a way that could lead to those diseases.

 

However, the researchers discovered good news as well: An omega-3 fatty acid known as docosahexaenoic acid, or DHA, seems to reverse the harmful changes produced by fructose.

"DHA changes not just one or two genes; it seems to push the entire gene pattern back to normal, which is remarkable," said Xia Yang, a senior author of the study and a UCLA assistant professor of integrative biology and physiology. "And we can see why it has such a powerful effect."

 

DHA occurs naturally in the membranes of our brain cells, but not in a large enough quantity to help fight diseases.

 

"The brain and the body are deficient in the machinery to make DHA; it has to come through our diet," said Fernando Gomez-Pinilla, a UCLA professor of neurosurgery and of integrative biology and physiology, and co-senior author of the paper.

 

DHA strengthens synapses in the brain and enhances learning and memory. It is abundant in wild salmon (but not in farmed salmon) and, to a lesser extent, in other fish and fish oil, as well as walnuts, flaxseed, and fruits and vegetables, said Gomez-Pinilla, who also is a member of UCLA's Brain Injury Research Center.

 

Americans get most of their fructose in foods that are sweetened with high-fructose corn syrup, an inexpensive liquid sweetener made from corn starch, and from sweetened drinks, syrups, honey and desserts. The Department of Agriculture estimates that Americans consumed an average of about 27 pounds of high-fructose corn syrup in 2014. Fructose is also found is in most baby food and in fruit, although the fiber in fruit substantially slows the body's absorption of the sugar—and fruit contains other healthy components that protect the brain and body, Yang said.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[pjfootballer]

I eat at least 2 pieces of fruit a day. No sodas. I gave up on baby food years ago when my teeth grew in.

[Predicto]

But sugar is sugar.  It's all the same.

 

That's what the corn industry has been telling me for years.  

[Ancalagon the Black]

But sugar is sugar.  It's all the same.

 

That's what the corn industry has been telling me for years.  

 

Table sugar is 50% fructose. HFCS is 55% fructose.

 

Americans get most of their fructose from HFCS not because it's that much worse than sugar. It's because it's in every freaking food produced in this country.

[PeterMP]

But sugar is sugar.  It's all the same.

 

That's what the corn industry has been telling me for years.  

 

There is no glucose, sucrose or other sugar control.

 

It is 15% fructose in water, compared to water with no fructose, compared to 15% fructose in water with added DHA to the diet.

 

And it is in rats and the rats were eating about the equivalent of 1-2 L soft drinks a day if you weigh 132 pounds.

 

Does anybody really think drinking 1 L of a soft drink a day is good for you, especially if you only weigh 132 pounds?

 

I strongly suspect that drinking a 1-2 L of soda a day isn't good for you whether it is sweetened by HFCS or sucrose.

 

A lot of sugar causes diabetes and other diseases in rats is the take home message and DHA can counter balance some of the effect.

[Predicto]

Table sugar is 50% fructose. HFCS is 55% fructose.

 

Americans get most of their fructose from HFCS not because it's that much worse than sugar. It's because it's in every freaking food produced in this country.

 

 

I know.   It is because we have more corn than we know what to do with. 

 

My point was only that the corn industry has been running television and print ads for 20 years downplaying the idea that HFCS is any different than any other form of sugar.   As far as I know, the scientific jury is still out on that question.  

There is no glucose, sucrose or other sugar control.

 

It is 15% fructose in water, compared to water with no fructose, compared to 15% fructose in water with added DHA to the diet.

 

And it is in rats and the rats were eating about the equivalent of 1-2 L soft drinks a day if you weigh,132 pounds.

 

Does anybody really think drinking 1 L of a soft drink a day is good for you, especially if you only weight 132 pounds?

 

A lot of sugar causes diabetes and other diseases in rats is the take home message and DHA can counter balance some of the effect.

 

 

Of course.  Too much of any sugar is bad.  

 

That was not my point.   I'm not assuming that HFCS is more dangerous than other sugars.  I'm just bugged by the 20 year industry campaign to convince me that it ISN'T, while the scientific research had not yet been done.  

[PeterMP]

Of course.  Too much of any sugar is bad.  

 

That was not my point.   I'm not assuming that HFCS is more dangerous than other sugars.  I'm just bugged by the 20 year industry campaign to convince me that it ISN'T, while the scientific research had not yet been done.  

 

But people have looked and in the vast majority of the studies the difference between HFCS and sucrose (table sugar) is negligible.

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17653981

 

Now, people haven't tested every possible out come and every possible condition, but that's a very high barrier to over come.

 

Nobody should drink the equivalent of 1-2 L of soda a day, especially if you only weigh 132 pounds.

[China]

And it is in rats and the rats were eating about the equivalent of 1-2 L soft drinks a day if you weigh 132 pounds.

 

Does anybody really think drinking 1 L of a soft drink a day is good for you, especially if you only weigh 132 pounds?

 

I strongly suspect that drinking a 1-2 L of soda a day isn't good for you whether it is sweetened by HFCS or sucrose.

 

 

For reference:

 

[Ancalagon the Black]

2012 was a long time ago.

 

http://fortune.com/2016/03/29/soda-sales-drop-11th-year/

 

Slumping demand for diet sodas sold by PepsiCo and Coca Cola propelled a decline for the broader industry, as overall sales of carbonated soft drinks dropped for the 11th consecutive year in the U.S.

Total volume declined 1.2% in 2015, an acceleration from 2014’s 0.9% drop, as the biggest three players in the category all reported falling demand, according to a new report from industry tracker Beverage Digest. The group also reported that annual per capita consumption of carbonated soft drinks dropped to about 650 eight-ounce servings in 2015 – the lowest since 1985.

[Predicto]

But people have looked and in the vast majority of the studies the difference between HFCS and sucrose (table sugar) is negligible.

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17653981

 

Now, people haven't tested every possible out come and every possible condition, but that's a very high barrier to over come.

 

 

Fair enough.  Thanks for the link.

[PF Chang]

I am not a scientist so take this with a grain of sugar: something is wrong with the way this country thinks about nutrition when we're petrified of aspartame/sucralose/MSG/whatever but have no problem chugging down HFCS or really any other 'natural' sugar. 

[Destino]

I am not a scientist nor do I have any relevant expertise.  Just want to be clear on that point.   

 

I'm waiting for science to gain a better understanding of sugar/food addiction.  Once there is a better understanding of it, and I'm one that believes it is absolutely a real thing, I'd like to see what role if any fructose or HFCS plays in it. Studies have shown fructose to have a different effect on the brain.  Those effects may not have a direct link to diseases, but they wouldn't need one to cause damage if fructose alters behavior in ways that result in worsening diet.  The behavior I'm interested in any alterations to food cravings, particularly which are craved and if more food is required to satisfy the craving. 

 

My reasons for believing that there is something to this is entirely personal experience and as such, I do not offer it up as proof or having any scientific value.  I was a smoker and I know what a nicotine craving felt like to me.  It felt like a hollow spot in the bottom of my throat that did not feel like hunger or thirst.  There was a period of time where my back was injured so I couldn't, well I could barely move at all, so I worked a lot.  I could sit in a chair and stare at a screen.  I could also eat the horrible diet that corresponds with spending too much time in an office and not being able to stand in front of a stove for long.  Lots of sugar.  When I didn't have anything sweet, I got that same hollow in the bottom of my throat.  A specific craving that had me thinking about a quick trip to the store that would accept no substitute.  Only cigarettes have ever made me think about leaving to run an errand like that.  So there you have the root of my suspicions. 

 

I am not tied to HFCS being any more addictive than regular sugar.  The role HFCS played could be entirely economic or none at all.  HFCS is is often reported as usually cheaper and easier to handle by food manufacturers (which may also reduce cost).  Even if HFCS is no different compared to other sugars in biological terms, the reduction in price combined with ease of use could have caused a long term increase in added sugar in the average diet through market forces.  If there is a portion of the population particularly vulnerable to sugar effecting them, as I suspect it did me, the increased presence of sugar in common foods could play a role in explaining the rise in obesity rates and the difficulty we've seen in reducing them.  

 

I don't think there is a single food or ingredient that has a direct causal relationship to the rise in obesity and related diseases.  If there was we would have found it.  But I think there is more to it than "people simply began choosing to eat horribly and be lazy in larger numbers". 

 

Again what I think doesn't matter, my crazy theories are my own.  I share them only for entertainment value.  

 

spoiler alert:  my back got better and I have way too much pride to plod around a basketball court uselessly.  An absolutely crazy month spend eating exactly zero sugar (exaggeration, some vegetables have sugar) broke the bad eating habits.  Got back in shape (dad shape, not shape shape) Cravings vanished too. 

[China]

2012 was a long time ago.

 

http://fortune.com/2016/03/29/soda-sales-drop-11th-year/

 

The group also reported that annual per capita consumption of carbonated soft drinks dropped to about 650 eight-ounce servings in 2015 – the lowest since 1985.

 

So actually more than what I posted.  This equates to 1.78 glasses per day, whereas the poll I posted gave a figure of 1.3.

[chipwhich]

PeterMP has been like the GOP is on global warming on this topic.

[PeterMP]

I am not a scientist nor do I have any relevant expertise.  Just want to be clear on that point.   

 

I'm waiting for science to gain a better understanding of sugar/food addiction.  Once there is a better understanding of it, and I'm one that believes it is absolutely a real thing, I'd like to see what role if any fructose or HFCS plays in it. Studies have shown fructose to have a different effect on the brain.  Those effects may not have a direct link to diseases, but they wouldn't need one to cause damage if fructose alters behavior in ways that result in worsening diet.  The behavior I'm interested in any alterations to food cravings, particularly which are craved and if more food is required to satisfy the craving.

 

Sucrose (normal table sugar) and glucose have shown similar affects on the brain, which some people have related to addiction, and a relationship to neural opioid pathways:

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2235907/

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12055324

 

Too much sugar is bad for you.

 

**EDIT**

In smallish amounts glucose might be significantly different than HFCS (fructose and glucose) and sucrose a molecule made up of fructose and glucose in terms of metabolism and end points (e.g. glycogen vs. TAGS), but that does not appear to be the case with respect to desires/behavior.

 

And in the end taking in a lot of glucose is almost certainly going to be bad for you.

 

I do think there has been an economic component to the move to HFCS and obesity.  I suspect it is easier and cheaper to add sugar in the form of HFCS than sucrose so food can contain more sugar while remaining cheap.

[PeterMP]

PeterMP has been like the GOP is on global warming on this topic.

 

Then I guess the Mayo Clinic is the global warming equivalent to the the Heartland Institute:

 

"High-fructose corn syrup is a common sweetener in sodas and fruit-flavored drinks. As use of high-fructose corn syrup has increased, so have levels of obesity and related health problems. Some wonder if there's a connection.

 

Research has shown that high-fructose corn syrup is chemically similar to table sugar.

 

Controversy exists, however, about whether the body handles high-fructose corn syrup differently than table sugar.

 

At this time, there's insufficient evidence to say that high-fructose corn syrup is any less healthy than other types of sweeteners.

 

It is known, however, that too much added sugar of all kinds — not just high-fructose corn syrup — can contribute unwanted calories that are linked to health problems, such as weight gain, type 2 diabetes, metabolic syndrome and high triglyceride levels. All of these boost your risk of heart disease."

http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-healthy-eating/expert-answers/high-fructose-corn-syrup/faq-20058201

I added the bold.

[BornaSkinsFan83]

Does anybody really think drinking 1 L of a soft drink a day is good for you, especially if you only weigh 132 pounds?

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/02/12/woman-dies-from-drinking-10-liters-coke-day-coroner-says.html

Woman died from drinking 10 liters of Coke a day, coroner says

...

Your post made me remember that story.

[mcsluggo]

Sucrose (normal table sugar) and glucose have shown similar affects on the brain, which some people have related to addiction, and a relationship to neural opioid pathways:

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2235907/

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12055324

 

Too much sugar is bad for you.

 

**EDIT**

In smallish amounts glucose might be significantly different than HFCS (fructose and glucose) and sucrose a molecule made up of fructose and glucose in terms of metabolism and end points (e.g. glycogen vs. TAGS), but that does not appear to be the case with respect to desires/behavior.

 

And in the end taking in a lot of glucose is almost certainly going to be bad for you.

 

I do think there has been an economic component to the move to HFCS and obesity.  I suspect it is easier and cheaper to add sugar in the form of HFCS than sucrose so food can contain more sugar while remaining cheap.

 

It is in the USA... because the Sugar and Corn lobbies are so powerful, and so aligned on keeping a ridiculously restrictive quota on sugar imports..... sugar prices in the USA are roughly double global prices  (or at least they used to be).

 

I don't think anyplace else in the world substitutes HFCS for sugar in anywhere near the levels that it happens in the USA... observing that fact, while simultaneously observing the fact that US obesity rates seem to have risen faster than rates in other countries is a big part of what has driven this type of research (but yeah... researchers have struggled to demonstrate causality)

[Ancalagon the Black]

So actually more than what I posted.  This equates to 1.78 glasses per day, whereas the poll I posted gave a figure of 1.3.

 

Yup, but I don't think it's apples to [caramel?] apples. The 2012 numbers appear to come from a survey while the reported number comes from a sales analysis. I wouldn't be surprised if people underreported how much soda they drank or if the mean sales number is pulled up by people who drink five or even 10 glasses per day.

 

I do think there's enough medical evidence that fructose has particularly harmful effects. I don't necessarily believe that it's an HFCS v sugar issue, though, as the difference in fructose content is relatively small.

 

Although we do substitute HFCS for sucrose in a ton of products in the USA, part of the problem is that we add HFCS or other sweeteners to foods that don't necessarily have them in nearly the same quantities in other countries. Examples are baked goods (including savory ones), condiments, dairy foods, soups, and pretty much any packaged/ready-to-eat food products.