Study: Fructose Fuels Cancer Growth

Diet and Nutrition
21

So fructose is the MAIN reason why people overeat? Interesting. Mind showing me some science to back that up?

Melanson KJ, et al. High-fructose corn syrup, energy intake, and appetite regulation. Am J Clin Nutr. 2008 Dec;88(6):1738S-1744S.

Soenen S, Westerterp-Plantenga MS. No differences in satiety or energy intake after high-fructose corn syrup, sucrose, or milk preloads. Am J Clin Nutr. 2007 Dec;86(6):1586-94.

Monsivais P, Perrigue MM, Drewnowski A. Sugars and satiety: does the type of sweetener make a difference? Am J Clin Nutr. 2007 Jul;86(1):116-23.

Akhavan T, Anderson GH. Effects of glucose-to-fructose ratios in solutions on subjective satiety, food intake, and satiety hormones in young men. Am J Clin Nutr. 2007 Nov;86(5):1354-63.

Spitzer L, Rodin J. Effects of fructose and glucose preloads on subsequent food intake. Appetite. 1987 Apr;8(2):135-45.

Rodin J, Reed D, Jamner L. Metabolic effects of fructose and glucose: implications for food intake. Am J Clin Nutr. 1988 Apr;47(4):683â??9.

Rodin J. Comparative effects of fructose, aspartame, glucose and water preloads on calorie and macronutrient intake. Am J Clin Nutr 1990;51:428â??35.

Rodin J. Effects of pure sugar versus mixed starch fructose loads on food intake. Appetite 1991;17:213â??9.
Moran TH. Fructose and satiety. J Nutr. 2009 Jun;139(6):1253S-1256S. Epub 2009 Apr 29.

So if fructose is the MAIN reason why people overeat, then why have I just posted 8 different studies showing greater satiety and smaller food intake with fructose preloads?

Do you have some actual statistics to back up your assertion about those engaged in manual labor being heavier or is that one of those “60% of all statistics are made up on the spot” things?

I’m not against the idea that Americans consume too much sugar. I am against the myopic view of people like yourself who believe that the entire obesity disease state can be traced back, both metabolically and psycosocially to a single fucking food ingredient.

22

Why would Americans consuming too much sugar be a problem?

Here, I’ll give you the answer: Because sugar is bad for you and its in every fucking thing.

THATS the problem. Not that sugar exists or that people eat it. That it exists IN EVERYTHING and people eat SO MUCH of it.

Myopic is doing a controlled study where you measure the effect of ONE MEAL outside the context of a lifetime of eating.

If its true that Americans eat MORE than people in other countries, why is that, if fructose provides greater satiety and smaller food intake? Since fructose is in EVERYTHING in America, shouldn’t Americans be eating much less than people whos diets arent full of fructose?

23

*whose

24

http://www.süssstoff-verband.de/download/SHOW/service/downloadservice/wissenschaft/wiss_the_lancet_sugar-sweetened-drinks_childhood-obesity.pdf

“Findings For each additional serving of sugar-sweetened drink
consumed, both body mass index (BMI) (mean 0·24 kg/m2;
95% CI 0·10â??0·39; pa0·03) and frequency of obesity (odds
ratio 1·60; 95% CI 1·14â??2·24; pa0·02) increased after
adjustment for anthropometric, demographic, dietary, and
lifestyle variables. Baseline consumption of sugar-sweetened
drinks was also independently associated with change in BMI
(mean 0·18 kg/m2 for each daily serving; 95% CI 0·09â??0·27;
pa0·02).
Interpretation Consumption of sugar-sweetened drinks is
associated with obesity in children.”

"Blood triglyceride levels were higher when subjects drank fructose-sweetened beverages with their meals compared to when they drank glucose-sweetened beverages. The total amount of triglycerides over a 24-hour period was almost 200 percent higher when the subjects drank fructose-sweetened beverages.

Although fructose increased triglyceride levels in all of the subjects, this effect was especially pronounced in insulin-resistant subjects, who already had increased triglyceride levels. Insulin resistance is a pre-diabetic condition often associated with obesity."

(Yup, no different effect on the body whatsoever)

25

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Why would Americans consuming too much sugar be a problem?

Here, I’ll give you the answer: Because sugar is bad for you and its in every fucking thing.

THATS the problem. Not that sugar exists or that people eat it. That it exists IN EVERYTHING and people eat SO MUCH of it.

Myopic is doing a controlled study where you measure the effect of ONE MEAL outside the context of a lifetime of eating.

If its true that Americans eat MORE than people in other countries, why is that, if fructose provides greater satiety and smaller food intake? Since fructose is in EVERYTHING in America, shouldn’t Americans be eating much less than people whos diets arent full of fructose?
[/quote]

No, myopic is suggesting Americans are getting fatter because of a single food ingredient as opposed to the fact that they are on average consuming 600 more calories per day (of ALL macronutrients mind you) compared to 30 years ago and moving around less. Myopic is trying to assert that the blame for this increased consumption is not a plethora of psychological, societal, and biological factors but rather a SINGLE FOOD INGREDIENT.

Of course you are quick to cite a single study done on people who are already obese or have diabetes with astronomic fructose intakes and small samples (n=17), but you disregard a body of evidence suggesting that fructose doesn’t FORCE people to eat more like you want to believe because it focuses on acute reactions rather than chronic conditions, completely ignoring the fact that your “chronic conditions” are little more than a collection of repeated acute reactions. My argument was not that fructose makes people eat less, but rather that it is not the sole culprit in the obesity epidemic. People who overate and sat on their asses all day were fat and sick 50 years ago before HFCS was ever on the market, it’s just that our modern lifestyle allows us to overeat with great convenience and encourages us to sit on our asses all day moreso than 30-50 years ago. Casting the blame on fructose is little more than a feeble attempt to shift responsibility from the people who can’t keep their weight and health in check to a faceless scapegoat ingredient. (and those corporations! man! doing…corporationy things!). It’s easier for the weak minded to conclude that nice people are falling upon hardship (sickness, obesity, etc) because of factors (somewhat) beyond their control rather than the hard reality that those problems are ones they brought upon themselves.

26

[quote]Stronghold wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Why would Americans consuming too much sugar be a problem?

Here, I’ll give you the answer: Because sugar is bad for you and its in every fucking thing.

THATS the problem. Not that sugar exists or that people eat it. That it exists IN EVERYTHING and people eat SO MUCH of it.

Myopic is doing a controlled study where you measure the effect of ONE MEAL outside the context of a lifetime of eating.

If its true that Americans eat MORE than people in other countries, why is that, if fructose provides greater satiety and smaller food intake? Since fructose is in EVERYTHING in America, shouldn’t Americans be eating much less than people whos diets arent full of fructose?
[/quote]

No, myopic is suggesting Americans are getting fatter because of a single food ingredient as opposed to the fact that they are on average consuming 600 more calories per day (of ALL macronutrients mind you) compared to 30 years ago and moving around less. Myopic is trying to assert that the blame for this increased consumption is not a plethora of psychological, societal, and biological factors but rather a SINGLE FOOD INGREDIENT.

[/quote]

The amount of sugar in the american diet is the worst problem. I never said it was the only problem.

[quote]

Of course you are quick to cite a single study done on people who are already obese or have diabetes with astronomic fructose intakes and small samples (n=17), but you disregard a body of evidence suggesting that fructose doesn’t FORCE people to eat more like you want to believe because it focuses on acute reactions rather than chronic conditions, completely ignoring the fact that your “chronic conditions” are little more than a collection of repeated acute reactions. My argument was not that fructose makes people eat less, but rather that it is not the sole culprit in the obesity epidemic. [/quote]

Ok, you’re too much of a stupid prick. No point wasting anymore time on you.

27

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Stronghold wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Why would Americans consuming too much sugar be a problem?

Here, I’ll give you the answer: Because sugar is bad for you and its in every fucking thing.

THATS the problem. Not that sugar exists or that people eat it. That it exists IN EVERYTHING and people eat SO MUCH of it.

Myopic is doing a controlled study where you measure the effect of ONE MEAL outside the context of a lifetime of eating.

If its true that Americans eat MORE than people in other countries, why is that, if fructose provides greater satiety and smaller food intake? Since fructose is in EVERYTHING in America, shouldn’t Americans be eating much less than people whos diets arent full of fructose?
[/quote]

No, myopic is suggesting Americans are getting fatter because of a single food ingredient as opposed to the fact that they are on average consuming 600 more calories per day (of ALL macronutrients mind you) compared to 30 years ago and moving around less. Myopic is trying to assert that the blame for this increased consumption is not a plethora of psychological, societal, and biological factors but rather a SINGLE FOOD INGREDIENT.

[/quote]

The amount of sugar in the american diet is the worst problem. I never said it was the only problem.

And how are you going to prove that it’s the WORST problem? Going to throw around some more n=12 studies about the negative effects of high sugar intake on diabetics? Fucking please. Scurry along, kid.