Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

High-fructose & high-fat diet damages liver + Research detracts "Eat less red meat"

#1
C C Offline
High-fructose and high-fat diet damages liver mitochondria, study finds
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/...100119.php

RELEASE: Researchers at Joslin Diabetes Center have found that high levels of fructose in the diet inhibit the liver's ability to properly metabolize fat. This effect is specific to fructose. Indeed, equally high levels of glucose in the diet actually improve the fat-burning function of the liver. This explains why high dietary fructose has more negative health impacts than glucose does, even though they have the same caloric content.

"This is one of a series of studies that we've been doing concerning what role high fructose in the diet plays in terms of insulin resistance and metabolic syndrome," says C. Ronald Kahn, Chief Academic Officer at Joslin and the Mary K. Iacocca Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School and lead author on the study published in Cell Metabolism. "Fructose makes the liver accumulate fat. It acts almost like adding more fat to the diet. This contrasts the effect of adding more glucose to the diet, which promotes the liver's ability to burn fat, and therefore actually makes for a healthier metabolism."

"The most important takeaway of this study is that high fructose in the diet is bad," says Dr. Kahn. "It's not bad because it's more calories, but because it has effects on liver metabolism to make it worse at burning fat. As a result, adding fructose to the diet makes the liver store more fat, and this is bad for the liver and bad for whole body metabolism." "Surprisingly, when you switch the sugar in the diet from fructose to glucose, even though they're both equally caloric, the glucose doesn't have that effect. In fact, if anything, overall metabolism is somewhat better than if they just were on plain high-fat diet. In this paper we wanted to figure out at a mechanistic level how this could be possible."

In a series of animal studies, the Joslin researchers compared effects on metabolism of six different diets: regular chow, chow with high fructose, chow with high glucose, a high-fat diet, a high-fat diet with high fructose, and a high-fat diet with high glucose. The researchers analyzed different known markers of fatty liver to determine the effects of each diet. For example, they looked at levels of acylcarnitines in the liver's cells. Acylcarnitines are produced when the liver burns fats. High levels of these are a bad sign, since it means there is a lot of fat in the liver being burned. Acylcarnitines were highest in the animals on the high-fat plus high fructose diet. They were lower in the high-fat plus glucose diet than in the plain high-fat diet, which reflected previous observational findings and indicated that glucose performed an assistive fat-burning action in these animals.

They also monitored the activity of a critical enzyme for fat-burning known as CPT1a. In the case of CPT1a, the higher the levels the better--they indicate that mitochondria are performing their fat-burning jobs correctly. However, in the high-fat plus fructose diet the researchers found that levels of CPT1a are low and their activity was very low, meaning mitochondria can't function properly.

This led the researchers to investigate the mitochondria themselves. "When mitochondria are healthy, they have this nice ovoid shape and crosshatching," says Dr. Kahn. "In the high-fat plus fructose group, these mitochondria are fragmented and they're not able to burn fat as well as the healthy mitochondria. But looking at the high-fat diet plus glucose group, those mitochondria become more normal looking because they are burning fat normally."

These findings, combined with other markers they monitored, proved that both high-fat and high-fat plus fructose diets damages mitochondria and makes it easier for the liver to synthesize and store fat rather than burn it. Dr. Kahn and colleagues plan believe that developing a drug which blocks fructose metabolism could prevent the negative actions of fructose and help prevent fatty liver disease and its adverse metabolic consequences, including impaired glucose tolerance and type 1 diabetes.



If you don't like something that the human sciences have proclaimed, just wait and it'll change.

Eat less red meat, scientists said. Now some believe that was bad advice.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/30/healt...ancer.html

EXCERPT: . . . Public health officials for years have urged Americans to limit consumption of red meat and processed meats because of concerns that these foods are linked to heart disease, cancer and other ills. But on Monday, in a remarkable turnabout, an international collaboration of researchers produced a series of analyses concluding that the advice, a bedrock of almost all dietary guidelines, is not backed by good scientific evidence.

If there are health benefits from eating less beef and pork, they are small, the researchers concluded. Indeed, the advantages are so faint that they can be discerned only when looking at large populations, the scientists said, and are not sufficient to tell individuals to change their meat-eating habits. “The certainty of evidence for these risk reductions was low to very low,” said Bradley Johnston, an epidemiologist at Dalhousie University in Canada and leader of the group publishing the new research in the Annals of Internal Medicine. (MORE - details)
Reply
#2
C C Offline
(UPDATE - the response) The Latest Fight Over Eating Meat
https://reason.com/2019/10/01/the-latest...on-truths/

EXCERPT: . . . This advice runs contrary to the consensus formed by most American medical organizations and the U.S. government, which says the optimal diet is one low in all kinds of meat and processed foods and higher in most kinds of vegetables, fruits, and grains. It's yet another example of the ways that years of bad government diet recommendations, media myths, and disagreement between competing factions in the world of diet and nutrition science have combined to make for an incredibly confusing environment for people who want to eat better, tastier, healthier diets. ... You can read the entire package from the American College of Physicians, which publishes the Annals, or just this summary ...

This conclusion has sparked a fight between two groups that might best be described as "meat agnostics," who believe that moderate meat consumption is not as risky as recently claimed, and "less meaters," who argue that meat consumption does not occur in a vacuum, and—in the industrialized context—is generally bad. If you buy raw animal proteins, cook them yourself, and eat them with mostly greens, rainbow vegetables, and legumes, you probably agree with the new recommendation. If you eat most of your meat out of a can, wrapper, or bucket, you are why people are mad at the new recommendation.

[...] That the panelists published by the Annals are now under attack by their peers in medicine is just the latest example of the war over nutrition advice. Many academic nutrition researchers ... are frustrated that they have to compete in a marketplace of ideas that does not elevate their findings over those of their peers, the advice of lay diet experts, and the marketing done by food companies. That the federal government has done such a hamfisted job of recommending the "right" advice and is slow to correct recommendations when consensus changes, is all the more infuriating.

What's more, popular media reporting on nutrition is often sloppy, sensationalized, and self-contradicting. [...] The noise around nutrition science should not distract us from the fact that Type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and other ailments with a lifestyle correlation are, in fact, a major health care expenditure in the U.S. and around the world; and that many humans in the industrialized world who should eat better both can afford to and would likely succeed with the right combination of external motivation and education.

This is why nutrition researchers are constantly at each other's throats. Each faction wants to have the final say, and for their peers and government to rally behind them. But it is futile to expect a single global nutrition paradigm to exist across varying economies, climates, and cultures, especially in the age of democratized media.

You're going to die regardless of what or how much you eat, but, on average, junk habits will kill you faster and decrease your quality of life. While there is no actual consensus on the optimal ratio of the three macronutrients (fat, carbohydrates, proteins), or on how much (if any) animal protein a person should consume each day, there is an actual, honest-to-God consensus against smoking cigarettes, drinking excessive alcohol, not sleeping enough, and consuming a diet made up mostly of processed foods. If you are the kind of person who desires certainty, nutritionists of every persuasion are certain about the above, if nothing else. (MORE - details)
Reply
#3
Zinjanthropos Offline
Maybe the species as a whole needs people to die early from whatever they ingest and for how long just so we can eventually get to the truth about what to avoid. Through decades of wrangling there are at least some things we know of that aren’t good for our well being. Meanwhile you have to decide, go with your gut.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Why protein-poor diet during pregnancy increases risk of prostate cancer in offspring C C 0 21 Jan 26, 2024 03:20 AM
Last Post: C C
  Research Yes, your pet might eat your corpse. That’s a problem for investigators (anatomy) C C 1 65 Jan 24, 2024 01:35 AM
Last Post: confused2
  Article Mediterranean diet & prostrate cancer + Anal sex injuries: not anatomy, but education C C 0 66 Mar 10, 2023 04:16 PM
Last Post: C C
  Vitamin K intake lowers bone fracture risk + The diet that cuts bowel cancer risk C C 0 96 Nov 29, 2022 06:21 PM
Last Post: C C
  Red meat is not a health risk + 3 common myths about recreational marijuana use C C 6 235 Nov 17, 2022 10:27 PM
Last Post: Ostronomos
  FDA votes against Pfizer booster for general public + Grow & eat your own vaccines? C C 3 202 Sep 19, 2021 03:16 AM
Last Post: Leigha
  Ethics of split liver transplantation: Analyzing case studies to make right decision C C 0 79 Jul 9, 2021 06:01 PM
Last Post: C C
  Moderna testing new vaccine + Kids eating hand sanitizer + HF diet erodes immunity C C 0 107 Feb 25, 2021 06:35 PM
Last Post: C C
  Diet, gut microbes affect chemotherapy outcomes C C 0 126 Jun 5, 2020 08:52 PM
Last Post: C C
  Teen goes blind on diet of french fries & pringles C C 3 315 Sep 5, 2019 12:57 AM
Last Post: Magical Realist



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)