Artificial Sweeteners Linked To Obesity And Diabetes

Leave a comment

People are becoming more health conscious and are bending towards use of artificial sweeteners, especially zero calorie ones. These replacements sugars have been demonstrated to be likely to cause health changes which are associated with obesity and diabetes.

 Worldwide these artificial sweeteners have become one of the most common food additives which are used. They can be found in a wide variety of beverages and food items including diet soda. One of the largest populations was looked at to investigate the effects of these artificial sweeteners and what they are capable of doing within the body, and metabolism of sweeteners and sugar after consumption; and the effects on blood vessel health. Results of this study were presented at the 2018 Experimental Biology Meeting.

 Model rats were fed diets which were high in fructose or glucose or acesulfame potassium, or aspartame; which are natural and zero calorie artificial sweeteners. Differences in concentrations of amino acids, fats, and other blood parameters observed within the animals after 3 weeks of being on the diets, specifically acesulfame potassium was found to be accumulating with in the blood and in higher concentrations damaging the blood vessel wall linings.

There has been a significant rise in diabetes and obesity despite the use of non-caloric artificial sweeteners. Researchers explain that this study shows that both artificial sweeteners and sugar have negative effects on the body which leads to diabetes and obesity, with the mechanisms for the cause of obesity differing for both.

When there was an overload of sugar machinery which handles them breaks down. Non-caloric artificial sweeteners lead to negative changes in metabolism, energy, and fat. More research is required on the subject, but results are enough to show high dietary sugars and artificial sweeteners do have negative health outcomes.

Materials provided by:

Note: Content may be edited for style and length.

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2018-04/eb2-wzs041218.php

 

“The Greatest Health of Your Life”℠

Boston Testosterone Partners
National Testosterone Restoration for Men
Wellness & Preventative Medicine

Advertisements

One hidden culprit behind weight gain: fruit juice

Leave a comment

Fruit juice isn’t doing any favors for your waistline, a new study reports.

People who drink a small glass of fruit juice daily can expect to steadily gain a bit of weight over the years, according to data from a long-term study of women’s health.

It’s about the same weight gain you’d expect if someone drank a similar amount of sugary soda every day, the study authors noted.

On the other hand, someone who increases consumption of whole fruit by one serving a day can expect to lose about a pound over three years, the researchers found.

A single 6-ounce daily serving of 100-percent fruit juice every day prompted an average weight gain of about half a pound over three years, said lead researcher Dr. Brandon Auerbach, a doctor at Virginia Mason Medical Center in Seattle.

“The numbers might not seem like they’re that large, but this is in the context of an average American gaining about one pound every year,” Auerbach said. “In terms of weight gain, there’s a striking difference between fruit juice and whole fruit.”

The large load of sugar contained in fruit juice is contributing to the United States’ obesity epidemic, the researchers concluded.

A 6-ounce serving of pure fruit juice contains between 15 and 30 grams of sugar, and 60 to 120 calories, the study authors noted.

Whole fruit also contains sugar, but that sugar is stored within the pulp and fiber of the fruit, Auerbach said. Even high-pulp 100-percent orange juice is not a significant source of fiber.

Without that added fiber, the sugar in fruit juice hits your bloodstream much faster, inducing an insulin jolt that alters your metabolism, Auerbach said.

“Fruit juice does have the same vitamins and minerals as whole fruit does, but it has hardly any fiber,” he said. “The sugar in fruit juice gets absorbed very quickly, and we think that’s why it acts differently in the body.”

This new report relied on data from more than 49,000 post-menopausal American women who were part of the Women’s Health Initiative, a national health study, between 1993 and 1998.

On average, participants gained a little more than 3 pounds during three years of follow-up, the researchers reported.

After controlling for other factors in weight gain—for example, exercise, total calories consumed a day, education and income—the researchers found that women who frequently drank fruit juice were more likely to  .

Sugary fruit juice is a contributing factor to obesity, said Dr. Reshmi Srinath, but “it’s hard to pinpoint as a single culprit” responsible for weight gain.

“Generally, the association is with the pattern of healthy eating and healthy lifestyle,” said Srinath, an assistant professor of endocrinology, diabetes and bone disease with Mount Sinai’s Icahn School of Medicine in New York City.

“Those who eat more fresh fruit are generally having a healthier or more active lifestyle than those who are drinking juice,” Srinath added. She wasn’t involved in the study.

Srinath noted that, on average, women in the study drank less than one serving a day of pure fruit juice from the beginning, “which makes it even harder to find a significant difference, and makes it a more challenging study to interpret.”

Both Srinath and Auerbach agreed that moms should limit kids’ fruit juice, and instead pop a piece of whole fruit in their lunches.

“I would say to limit juice, especially through childhood, because those patterns can continue into adulthood,” Srinath said.

The study was published online recently in the journal Preventive Medicine.

More information: Brandon Auerbach, M.D., MPH, doctor, Virginia Mason Medical Center, Seattle; Reshmi Srinath, M.D., assistant professor, endocrinology, diabetes and bone disease, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City; Jan. 9, 2018, Preventive Medicine, online.

Article Source: https://medicalxpress.com/news/2018-02-hidden-culprit-weight-gain-fruit.html

February 14, 2018 by Dennis Thompson, Healthday Reporter

 

“The Greatest Health of Your Life”℠

Boston Testosterone Partners
National Testosterone Restoration for Men
Wellness & Preventative Medicine

Report: Industry hid decades-old study showing sugar’s unhealthy effects

Leave a comment

Big Sugar seems to have copied the Big Tobacco playbook, a new report contends.

More than four decades ago, a study in rats funded by the sugar industry found evidence linking the sweetener to heart disease and bladder cancer, the paper trail investigation reports.

The results of that study were never made public.

Instead, the sugar industry pulled the plug on the study and buried the evidence, said senior researcher Stanton Glantz, a professor of medicine and director of the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education.

Glantz likened this to suppressed Big Tobacco internal research linking smoking with heart disease and cancer.

“This was an experiment that produced evidence that contradicted the scientific position of the sugar industry,” Glantz said. “It certainly would have contributed to increasing our understanding of the cardiovascular risk associated with eating a lot of sugar, and they didn’t want that.”

In response to the investigation, The Sugar Association issued a statement calling it “a collection of speculations and assumptions about events that happened nearly five decades ago, conducted by a group of researchers and funded by individuals and organizations that are known critics of the sugar industry.”

The new paper focuses on an industry-sponsored study referred to as Project 259 in documents generated by the Sugar Research Foundation and its successor, the International Sugar Research Foundation, and dug up decades later by Glantz and his colleagues.

Researchers at the University of Birmingham in England conducted Project 259 between 1967 and 1971, comparing how lab rats fared when fed table sugar versus starch. The scientists specifically looked at how gut bacteria processed the two different forms of carbohydrate.

Early results in August 1970 indicated that rats fed a high-sugar diet experienced an increase in blood levels of triglycerides, a type of fat that contributes to cholesterol.

Rats fed loads of sugar also appeared to have elevated levels of beta-glucuronidase, an enzyme previously associated with bladder cancer in humans, the researchers said.

Months after receiving these results, the International Sugar Research Foundation failed to approve an additional 12 weeks of funding that the Birmingham researchers needed to complete their work, according to the authors behind the new investigation.

“The investigator they funded came back to them with preliminary results, which were showing these adverse effects of sugar and said, ‘I need a few more weeks to finish the study,'” Glantz said. “They just looked at it and said no, and shut the whole thing down. As far as we can tell, nothing was ever published.”

Project 259’s timing was critical, said Glantz and lead author Cristin Kearns, a postdoctoral fellow with the UCSF School of Medicine who reportedly discovered the industry documents.

During that period, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration was weighing whether to take a hard line on high-sugar foods.

“Had those results been made public, sugar would have gotten a lot more scrutiny than it did,” Kearns said.

The Sugar Association says Project 259 was significantly delayed and over budget, “and the delay overlapped with an organizational restructuring with the Sugar Research Foundation becoming a new entity, the International Sugar Research Foundation,” according to its own review of archive material.

“There were plans to continue the study with funding from the British Nutrition Foundation, but, for reasons unbeknown to us, this did not occur,” the industry trade group’s statement says.

“Throughout its history, the Sugar Association has embraced scientific research and innovation in an attempt to learn as much as possible about sugar, diet and health,” the statement continues. “We know that sugar consumed in moderation is part of a balanced lifestyle, and we remain committed to supporting research to further understand the role sugar plays in consumers’ evolving eating habits.”

Nutritionist Sharon Zarabi is director of the bariatric program at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City. She said the new investigation reveals “the power food industry lobbyists have on government guidelines that instruct us on what to eat.”

Zarabi noted that “most research studies that support specific foods are funded by industry and this oftentimes skews the results.”

Although these revelations might produce a media furor, they’re unlikely to change the recommendations coming from dietitians, said Kelly Hogan, clinical nutrition and wellness manager at the Mount Sinai Dubin Breast Center in New York City.

That’s because subsequent research has revealed the effect that diets high in sugar can have on long-term health. People need to follow a balanced diet if they want to eat healthy, and that doesn’t mean just focusing on added sugars, she said.

“You can’t point out one single thing and blame that on any sort of health crisis, either now or 40 years ago,” Hogan said. “It’s never just one thing, whether that’s sugar or saturated fat or whatever the trendy thing might be.”

The new paper was published online in November in the journal PLOS Biology. It was funded by a grant from the U.S. National Cancer Institute, among others.

Article Source: http://www.chicagotribune.com/lifestyles/health/sc-hlth-industry-hid-effects-of-sugar-1129-story.html

Written By: Dennis Thompson

“The Greatest Health of Your Life”℠

Boston Testosterone Partners
National Testosterone Restoration for Men
Wellness & Preventative Medicine

The type, not just the amount, of sugar consumption matters in risk of health problems

Leave a comment

The type of sugar you eat—and not just calorie count—may determine your risk for chronic disease. A new study is the first of its kind to compare the effects of two types of sugar on metabolic and vascular function. The paper is published ahead of print in the American Journal of Physiology—Heart and Circulatory Physiology.

Female rats were given a liquid solution of either glucose (a form of sugar found naturally in the body after carbohydrates are broken down) or fructose (sugar found in fruit and fruit juices) in addition to their normal diet of solid food. The rats received the sweetened solutions for eight weeks, roughly equivalent to a person eating large amounts of sugar for six years. The sugar-fed rats were compared with a control group that received plain drinking water in addition to their food supply.

Researchers found that although both sugar-fed groups consumed more calories than the control group, the total calorie intake of the glucose-fed rats was higher than the rats that were given fructose. Another surprising observation was that “despite this difference, only the fructose group exhibited a significant increase in final body weight,” wrote the research team.

In addition to higher weight gain, the fructose group showed more markers of vascular disease and liver damage than the glucose group. These included high triglycerides, increased liver weight, decreased fat burning in the liver (a factor that can contribute to fatty liver) and impaired relaxation of the aorta, which can affect blood pressure.

These findings suggest that an increase in the amount of calories consumed due to sweeteners is not the only factor involved in long-term health risks. The type of sugar may also play a role in increasing risk factors for heart disease, diabetes and other chronic diseases.

More information: Gemma Sangüesa et al. TYPE OF SUPPLEMENTED SIMPLE SUGAR, NOT MERELY CALORIE INTAKE, DETERMINES ADVERSE EFFECTS ON METABOLISM AND AORTIC FUNCTION IN FEMALE RATS, American Journal of Physiology – Heart and Circulatory Physiology (2016). DOI: 10.1152/ajpheart.00339.2016

Read more at: https://medicalxpress.com/news/2017-01-amount-sugar-consumption-health-problems.html#jCp

Article Source: https://medicalxpress.com/news/2017-01-amount-sugar-consumption-health-problems.html

“The Greatest Health of Your Life”℠

Boston Testosterone Partners
National Testosterone Restoration for Men
Wellness & Preventative Medicine

How the sugar industry has distorted health science for more than 50 years

Leave a comment

The sugar industry has a long history of shaping nutrition policy in the United States, working to mask the potential risks of consuming too much of the sweet stuff.

It wasn’t until this year, for instance, that the US Dietary Guidelines finally recommended people keep their consumption of added sugars below 10 percent of their total calorie intake — decades after health advocates began pressing for the measure. The sugar lobby had fended off this recommendation all the while.

New research, published today in JAMA Internal Medicine, shows that Big Sugar  may have done more than just advocate for favorable policies. Going back more than 50 years, the industry has been distorting scientific research by dictating what questions get asked about sugar, particularly questions around sugar’s role in promoting heart disease.

The paper focuses on a debate that first popped up in the 1950s, when the rate of heart disease started to shoot up in the United States. Scientists began searching for answers, and zeroed in on dietary saturated fat as the leading contributor. (The energy we get from food comes in three kinds of nutrients: fats, carbohydrates, and protein.)

This may not have been an accident. Through an examination of archival documents, the JAMA paper shows how a sugar trade association helped boost the hypothesis that eating too much saturated fat was the major cause of the nation’s heart problems, while creating doubt about the evidence showing that sugar could be a culprit too. Sugar increases triglycerides in the blood, which may also help harden the arteries and thicken artery walls — driving up the risk of stroke, heart attack, and heart disease.

Today, scientific consensus related to the role specific macronutrients play in the diet has shifted. Researchers have come around to the view that a person’s overall eating habits probably matter more for health than the particular percentages of carbs, fats, and proteins taken in. But they also generally agree that some kinds of fats are less damaging to health than others. (In particular, unsaturated fats appear to be better for one’s cardiovascular disease risk than saturated and trans fats.) And that too much sugar can be just as bad as too much fat for the heart.

The new JAMA paper reveals why the public may know less about the sugar-heart link than it ought to.

How the sugar industry played down the role of sugar in heart disease

Beginning in the 1950s, notes the JAMA paper, led by Cristin Kearns of UC San Francisco, a trade group called the Sugar Research Foundation was concerned about evidence showing that a low-fat diet high in sugar might raise cholesterol levels in the blood.

If sugar turned out to be a major driver of heart issues, the group surmised, that could be devastating for sugar producers.

 JAMA Internal Medicine
The close epidemiological links between sugar and saturated fat “consumption” and mortality in 14 countries.

So the Sugar Research Foundation aligned itself with leading Harvard nutrition professors, and paid them the equivalent of $48,900 (in 2016 dollars) for a two-part research review, later published in the New England Journal of Medicine, that would discredit the link between sugar and heart disease.

“[The review] concluded there was ‘no doubt’ that the only dietary intervention required to prevent coronary heart disease was to reduce dietary cholesterol and substitute polyunsaturated fat for saturated fat in the American diet,” the study authors wrote. In other words, the sugar-sponsored researchers emphasized the role saturated fat played in heart troubles, and de-emphasized the risks dietary sugar carry.

This 50-year-old incident is not ancient history

The researchers dug up this old sugar case because it still reverberates today — in both how we view sugar’s impact on the body and how science is done.

“This 50-year-old incident may seem like ancient history,” writes Marion Nestle, a New York University food policy professor, in an accompanying editorial, “but it is quite relevant, not least because it answers some questions germane to our current era. Is it really true that food companies deliberately set out to manipulate research in their favor? Yes, it is, and the practice continues.” Nestle has been documenting the instances where companies fund nutrition studies that overwhelmingly return favorable results to the industry sponsors.

sugar

“Our research emphasizes that industry-funded science needs to be heavily scrutinized, and not taken at face value,” said Kearns, the lead author on the JAMA paper. “There are so many ways a study can be manipulated — from the questions that are asked, from how the information is analyzed, even to how the conclusions are described in the paper.”

In this case, the sugar industry involvement in science influenced not only the scientific enterprise but also public-health policy, and potentially, the health of millions of people. Kearns points out that the most recent World Health Organization sugar guidelines focus on reducing consumption because of sugar’s role in obesity and tooth decay — not the heart risk.

“I think [the WHO] should have also looked at the relationship between sugar and heart disease,” Kearns said. “And by having all the attention shifted off of sugar related to heart disease, we have avoided asking those specific questions.”

The Sugar Association — the trade group from which the Sugar Research Foundation in the JAMA paper evolved — continues to push back on the sugar-heart link. Most recently,the group called the American Heart Association’s recommendation that kids eat no more than 6 teaspoons of sugar a day “baffling,” arguing that it was not based on science and that added sugars can have a healthy place in children’s diets.

Written By: Julia Belluz

Article Source: http://www.vox.com/2016/9/12/12864442/jama-sugar-industry-distort-science

“The Greatest Health of Your Life”℠

Boston Testosterone Partners
National Testosterone Restoration for Men
Wellness & Preventative Medicine

Junk Food Isn’t Just Making People Fat—It’s Making Them Stupid

Leave a comment

Crossword, Sudoku, and Jeopardy! enthusiasts beware: Every french fry and candy bar you consume might be throwing off your game.

A study conducted by researchers at Oregon State University and published in the journal Neuroscience suggests that high-fat, high-sugar diets have a detrimental effect on what they refer to as “cognitive flexibility,” or the power to adapt and adjust to changing situations.

The research was performed using laboratory mice that consumed diets with varying levels of fat and sugar before facing a gamut of tests—primarily mazes and basic puzzles—to monitor changes in their mental and physical function. The researchers paid specific attention to the types of gut bacteria present in each control group.

So, Why Should You Care? “Bacteria can release compounds that act as neurotransmitters, stimulate sensory nerves or the immune system, and affect a wide range of biological functions,” Kathy Magnusson, a professor in the OSU College of Veterinary Medicine and principal investigator with the Linus Pauling Institute, said in a statement. In about four weeks, the mental and physical performances of the mice on a high-fat, high-sugar diet started to drop significantly, especially when one or more variables in the test changed. One of the most disparate physiological factors within the groups of mice, and the suspected reason for the decreased brain function, was gut bacteria.

People have been paying more attention to their guts than ever. Yogurt companies are using the term “probiotic” to peddle their sugary treats to would-be health junkies, and celebrities like sportscaster Erin Andrews are now digestive health spokespeople for hire, trying to finally make gut bacteria the hip and cool subject it deserved to be all along. But the scientific community has also started paying closer attention to those trillions of stomach-dwelling microflora.

One of the first studies to link gut bacteria to brain function was performed by researchers at the Gail and Gerald Oppenheimer Family Center for Neurobiology and Stress and appeared in the peer-reviewed journal Gastroenterology. They took three groups of women and had one group consume yogurt loaded with supplemental probiotics daily for four weeks, had another group eat a substance that looked and tasted like yogurt but had no probiotics, and gave the third group nothing specific to eat. Not only did the sans-probiotic group suffer in cognitive tests, just as the mice in the recent Oregon State study did, but it also faltered in emotion-based tests, linking poor gut health to stress.

“This work suggests that fat and sugar are altering your healthy bacterial systems, and that’s one of the reasons those foods aren’t good for you.” Magnusson said. “It’s not just the food that could be influencing your brain but an interaction between the food and microbial changes.”

Slowly but surely, people are starting to go with their gut.

Written By: Josh Scherer

Article Source: http://www.takepart.com/article/2015/07/07/high-fat-sugar-diet-makes-you-stupid?cmpid=foodinc-fb

“The Greatest Health of Your Life”℠

Boston Testosterone Partners
National Testosterone Restoration for Men
Wellness & Preventative Medicine