When you're metabolically screwed up, the study of "normal" people tells you nothing

Is it possible that sugar is the culprit behind metabolic syndrome? It seems that glucose and fructose together are bad news. I found an article to read last night, and saved it because it was late at the time. I've spent the last couple of hours reading it (and looking up biochemistry terms LOL).

The following are pieces of the article that I found the most interesting. Remember, if you don't have access to scholarly databases and want to read the article, you should be able to get a log-in for your local public library's proxy and then be able to look up journal articles.


1.) Low glycogen promotes insulin action, whereas high glycogen promotes insulin resistance. Glycogen is primarily elevated by eating carbohydrates.

"Prevention of glycogen synthesis, by fasting or feeding a low-carbohydrate/high-fat diet, results in a persistence of contraction and insulin-mediated glucose transport that lasts as long as carbohydrates are not consumed. This line of work shows that low glycogen promotes increased insulin action, whereas high glycogen promotes insulin resistance."

2.) People who are metabolically damaged respond more positively to restricting carbohydrate intake than people who are not metabolically damaged.

"That patients with MetS [metabolic syndrome] might be particularly sensitive to carbohydrate restriction was suggested by Cornier et al. [28] who compared the response of obese insulin-sensitive and obese insulin-resistant subjects randomized to either a high-carbohydrate (60%) or lower carbohydrate (40%) diet. Weight loss was similar for the insulin-sensitive group irrespective of carbohydrate level. The most striking result was that only the insulin-resistant group showed a major change in any lipid parameter with a 42% average decrease in TG on lower carbohydrate, and a 27% increase on higher carbohydrate. That individuals with MetS or insulin resistance syndrome respond better to restricting carbohydrates than fat is consistent with intolerance to carbohydrate as the fundamental metabolic problem."

3.) The saturated fat levels in your blood are higher when eating carbohydrates. Go figure.

"If carbohydrate intake were low enough to decrease levels of glucose and insulin, however, a high SFA intake would be processed very differently. We recently showed, for example, a disconnect between dietary SFA and plasma levels of SFA apparently due to the regulatory role of dietary carbohydrate in controlling de novo lipogenesis (DNL)...

A notable result was that, despite a 3-fold higher intake of dietary saturated fat during the VLCKD [very low carb], saturated fatty acids in TG [triglyceride] and cholesteryl ester were significantly decreased compared to subjects consuming the LFD [low fat diet]. That this was due to a decrease in DNL [de novo lipogenesis] was shown by a corresponding reduction in palmitoleic acid (16:1n-7), an endogenous indicator of this process."

4.) Glucose, independent of insulin, also has an effect on fat storage.

"Expression of the lipogenic genes occurs without any apparent effect of insulin indicating one way in which glucose directly regulates nutrient partitioning."

5.) It's not about calories per se.

"It is worth noting that many changes in lipid metabolism during fasting are due to the specific removal of carbohydrate as opposed to a general elimination of calories."

6.) This was the most interesting one. Insulin resistance occurs in the muscles and liver first, and when this happens, your body has no choice but to convert the glucose in your blood stream into fat (either de novo lipogenesis or manufacture of triglycerides). This is an interesting concept on a few levels. One thing is, any studies done on people who are NOT insulin resistant could be IRRELEVANT for those who are.


("There are truths which are not for all men, nor for all times."--Voltaire)

"The fate of a dietary carbohydrate load in lean insulin-resistant and insulin-sensitive men was determined using a combination of 1H and 13C NMR spectroscopy to assess liver and muscle triglyceride and glycogen synthesis, respectively, and deuterium enrichment to assess de novo lipogenesis. The insulin-resistant men showed impaired skeletal muscle and hepatic glycogen formation following intake of dietary carbohydrate. Consistent with the paradigm presented in Fig. 1, dietary carbohydrate in the insulin-resistant group was instead diverted toward hepatic DNL [de novo lipogenesis] and TG [triglyceride] synthesis that contributed to a significant increase (60%) in plasma TG levels."

7.) A short study probably shows jack when it comes to metabolism.

"The time course of metabolic adaptations is also variable; some lipolytic adaptations occur within a week (e.g., gene expression of FAT/CD36 and b HAD) while others take longer (e.g., FABP and CPT I). Several weeks may be necessary for complete switch to optimal fat utilization."

8.) Fatty acid oxidation is increased with carbohydrate restriction. According to Lippincott's Illustrated biochemistry text, fatty acid oxidation is the primary source of fuel when starving. We know that decreased carbohydrate intake is similar to starving when it comes to how your body mobilizes fat stores.

"The hormonal changes that accompany carbohydrate restriction, fasting or continued physical activity lead to inhibition of glycogen synthesis and inactivation of acetyl-CoA carboxylase and a fall in malonyl-CoA levels which, in turn, relieves inhibition of carnitine transport and thereby stimulates fatty acid oxidation."

All very interesting stuff.

The Misconception of Natural Sweeteners

Lots of things are natural, meaning they occur in nature. Arsenic, cyanide, uranium, deadly nightshade. That doesn't mean you'd want to eat them, or even come into contact with some of them. I don't know how many articles I have read decrying the evils of High Fructose Corn Syrup, and yet saying that regular sugar is fine. Now, I'm not saying that HFCS is the same as sugar, it's not, by a long shot, however, neither of them are good for your health. Other naturally occurring sugars are no better, like honey. Sugar is sugar, and the glucose spikes your blood sugar while the fructose portion damages your liver and raises your triglyceride levels. That includes the fructose in fruit.

We have articles in newspapers like this one, since it's Valentine's day:

"But let's not make fructose the only bad guy here. The real problem is our consumption of all added sugar. Naturally occurring sugars like fructose, found in fruit, and lactose, found in milk, are valuable nutrients."

Overall, this article is better than most, but still has some problems. It fails in that it differentiates the fructose in fruit from the fructose in HFCS. There's not one iota of a difference, with perhaps the exception that if you ate a piece of fruit you might get less than if you ate something laden with HFCS. The problem is, our modern fruit has been bred to be bigger and sweeter. The sweeter it is, the more fructose is in it. Also, the fructose found in sucrose (table sugar) is also the same to your cells.

The problem is, they can't let go of the notion, that "everybody knows it's common knowledge" notion, that fruit is good for you. Five hundred years ago everyone knew the earth was flat too, and the center of the universe to boot. We all know what happened to Galileo when he dared to suggest otherwise.

"Does this research mean that eating fruit will increase your risk of heart disease and diabetes? Absolutely not."

That statement may be blatantly false, considering the study out of New Zealand that I wrote about last week, that I might add no American media picked up (good thing I didn't hold my breath).

Another newspaper article, also acts like natural sweeteners aren't a problem:

"While the massive amount of high-fructose corn syrup consumed by many people isn't a great choice, a more moderate amount of natural sweeteners can be a wonderful complement to a healthy diet."

What exactly is their idea of "moderation"? Eating 100 lbs of sugar a year versus the current 150+? Taubes wrote about this in "Good Calories, Bad Calories" and it seems from some reports by doctors who were in Africa and other colonial places a hundred years ago that a sugar intake of approximately 60 lbs was the cut off point of "too much". After consumption rose above that level, and after a time frame of about 20 years consuming such levels, they saw diabetes and metabolic syndrome begin to develop, along with all the other western diseases that go along with them. And really, it might be that a lower consumption just means it takes longer to develop metabolic problems in some people, or maybe even in most people. I doubt seriously the authors of these news articles imagine that we really might need to restrict our sugar intake to a minuscule amount to avoid developing disease.

The first article I cited did have a great line in it:

"If we really looked like what we eat, most Americans would look like kernels of corn."

There's the truth if I ever read it.

Fructose and Fetal Harm

Via a comment on Fat Head:

A commenter on Fat Head left a link to this article, from New Zealand that fructose may affect the development of female children. Sucrose (table sugar) is half fructose, and High Fructose Corn Syrup is more than half fructose, depending on the mixture. And I need not point out that HFCS is in just about everything that's manufactured or processed. They slip it into the most innocuous places. Fructose also occurs in fruit, something that a lot of doctors push people, especially diabetics, to eat (detrimentally to their health I might add).

A lot of pregnant women may think that because they're not overweight, or they don't have gestational diabetes, that it's okay if they consume large quantities of sugar or fruit. They often use the fallacy that because we've been consuming sugar for a long time, it's not a problem. The thing is, we've not been consuming sugar or fruit in the quantities we do for very long. Sugar consumption in the past thirty years has skyrocketed to 150+ lbs per person per year in the States, whereas in the 19th century sugar consumption was only in the 15 to 20 lb range per year before 1850. And even just fifty years ago, most people only ate fruit when it was in season, which in most parts of the world is a limited time frame. I'm sure with the powers-that-be and doctors pushing fruit consumption, that it has also risen.

Is fructose safe?

"In the study, where rats were fed diets high in fructose during pregnancy and lactation, the sugar was found to change key metabolic hormone levels in both foetuses and new born offspring...

The fact that we saw no obvious weight gain implies that women may be unaware that their diet could be compromising the development of their fetus."

They don't say what metabolic hormones are affected specifically, but I'm thinking insulin is probably one of them. Now, I also read a study not too long ago that female rat offspring were also affected by maternal dietary salt restriction. Another thing that the doctors push on us, lower your salt intake they say! Salt restriction in the mother made the female offspring insulin resistant with increased adiposity (fat). The male offspring were not so affected. Does this mean that there would be nothing to worry about with males then?

I doubt it seriously. I read that in indigenous populations, such as the Pima, female hormones somehow protect women from getting diabetes, at least for a while. However, they get very obese instead. Eventually they get diabetes, but not before getting fat. It is theorized that the fat protects them from diabetes as long as their bodies can continue to convert excess sugar in the blood to fat and store it. Now, the men don't necessarily get as fat as the women, but they have an increased incidence in developing diabetes.

I'm glad to see that a news organization actually published something that goes against the party line. I guess they don't grow much corn or sugar in New Zealand. I'm waiting for one of the American news organizations to pick this up, but I won't hold my breath. Asphyxiation is no way to die.

In the beginning...

In the beginning God created journalists. And they were real journalists, in that they rooted out the truth and gave it to the general public. But then somehow things changed, as they usually do, and journalists became beholden to corporate interests. And they stopped telling you (the public) the truth and began telling you what they thought was the truth. Or rather, what they thought ought to be the truth. It may not have been entirely their fault. They were lied to. But instead of investigating whether what they were told was a lie or not, they accepted it at face value. Perhaps the scent of money to be had made them shut their eyes and their ears and accept the lies. I suppose the glint of silver does that to a person.

We know it's a lie. Gary Taubes has shown us all that. The man deserves a nobel prize.

What pisses me off, is that I was lied to. Isn't that how it usually is? Humans are very self-centered creatures for the most part. I was told all my life that I ate too much, and that was why I was fat. In my case though, I now know that's not true and I can do something about it. I've lost about forty pounds since I read Taubes' book last May.

The same can't be said for the millions of dead. That's not hyperbole either. Almost everyone who has died of complications from diabetes in the last thirty years might have been saved if they'd only been told the truth, instead of to "eat more fruit." That includes my mother's best friend, who lost her leg before she lost her life some years ago now.

The lies go on almost every day in the press and on the daily news or morning show, and people continue to believe them. And until the lie is stopped, we'll have more dead best friends, more dead mothers, more dead sisters, etc... It doesn't have to be this way.