5 ms·

Off the top of my head - Sugars and <edit> complex carbohydrates </edit> that break down to derive a lot of fructose - being used in excess in manufactured foo

Off the top of my head - Sugars and <edit> complex carbohydrates </edit> that break down to derive a lot of fructose - being used in excess in manufactured food. New Scientist had an article in the 90s in regard to tests on fructose free and normal diet on rats. Pretty much tended to show the increase of appetite as well as more storage. In recent years Harvard did further studies why. However there's a lot more than that going on, iirc didn't Michael Moore produce a doco on some of the tricks big fast food industry use to entice more food consumption. I don't think there's just one box and everyone is the same, but in my 20s due to an accident I gained a lot of weight where I needed suspenders to keep my jeans and trousers up, and once I was well enough I first walked a few mile every day and eventually using a push bike to travel to my nearest town for further studies about 30 miles (50km) away. Sure those trips moved from taking around 4 hours down to just over 2 and peddled near everywhere at that point, I still had most of that excess fat around the gut. Even after I stopped riding a bike, it was about the same but I still did quite a lot of manual work at that point and ... I tried that experiment more or less they'd done on rats, I used glucose instead of sucrose and maybe it would help ... in a mere matter of weeks instead of months the fat just fell away, and even before much had fell away I'd felt so much better.

exfatloss 4y ago
I think starch only breaks into glucose, not fructose.
- anenefan 4y ago
  I believe you are right, I did mean complex carbohydrates so I'd better edit that in.
876978095789789 4y ago
> Sugars and <edit> complex carbohydrates </edit> that break down to derive a lot of fructose https://twitter.com/sguyenet/status/669638118400749568 https://twitter.com/sguyenet/status/669638118400749568
- anenefan 4y ago
  Unsure what message you're implying or just sugar consumption in the US has declined more than 15% since 1999. Though similar decline is reflected at a couple other online areas [1] [2] I am however not going to research and quantify that ... besides I don't trust the big food industry to provide accurate figures, I'd only confidently trust a totally independent facility that confirmed overall sugar and easy to digest carbohydrate levels in each food item and average consumption by the population. Sugars like sucrose and HFCS rather than regular corn syrup, yield 50% and >42% fructose respectively. It's consumption in great quantity does not seem to have a major impact on some people, but certainly others are prone to the vast amount of fructose consumed. Harvard iirc showed how the extra fructose in diet corresponded to longer villi in the gut. Obviously there's other factors at play, but excess fructose consumption is nonetheless an obvious change in diet to what those earlier than 60 or 70 years ago. [1] https://www.healthyfoodamerica.org/sugartoolkit_overview_original https://www.healthyfoodamerica.org/sugartoolkit_overview_ori... [2] https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Sugar-consumption-in-the-US-The-black-line-is-sugar-from-cane-beet-and-corn-combined_fig19_283462716 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Sugar-consumption-in-the...
  - 876978095789789 4y ago
    > Unsure what message you're implying or just sugar consumption in the US has declined more than 15% since 1999. I'm implying excess sugar consumption, including HFCS, is not the cause of the obesity epidemic. No one's telling you to eat it, though.
    - anenefan 4y ago
      One thing that is striking is those who have the means to eat well and more diverse foods seem to fare better weight wise, yet those who are poorer and have to rely on processed foods to make up the bulk of their diet as it's cheaper and affordable, where they can not avoid the added sugar with fructose derivatives, don't fare so well even if they try to add in better things to their diet to balance it like a small amount fruit and vegetables. I for one, noted first hand the very stark difference cutting down the fructose had, not just on weight, but how it modified my mood and appetite. In actual fact the one problem I had with my little self experiment was my diet got worse balance wise. There was no placebo effect to account for IMO, since trying for years on actively planning time to be very active did not help much, though my muscles were better for it, I had expected a mere change in removing fructose to be on a time scale of at best 10 months, and expected more likely if it worked at all, after a year I might be lucky enough to lose 10 kg (approx 20 pounds) ... instead on starting the low fructose diet, my mood notably improved in a week or so (I didn't think I had a mood issue - I am what I am, so that was unexpected,) and I didn't shed 10 kg but 25 kg in two or three months (I no longer recall the exact time frame) ... and while I did that I was no longer push bike riding where I might easily clock 100 km (60 miles) in a day but still moderately active but not that active. Seemed clear to me though a few people would not respond the same, but since I'm not unique, many would also fare similarly as well. The only issue was the tedious nature of introducing and staying true to ensuring that sugar consumed was far more glucose than what broke down into fructose, even though I still ate a small amount of processed food - most sugar was fortunately by way of hot drinks consumed during the day. To say it was actually something else in my case, equates to blaming eating a pie, a couple boiled whole potatoes or same ration of pumpkin pieces, 3 cups of milk per day for my weight problem back in my 20s ... I really wasn't eating very much, though sugar was powering my days.

exfatloss 4y ago

I think starch only breaks into glucose, not fructose.

anenefan 4y ago
I believe you are right, I did mean complex carbohydrates so I'd better edit that in.

876978095789789 4y ago

> Sugars and <edit> complex carbohydrates </edit> that break down to derive a lot of fructose https://twitter.com/sguyenet/status/669638118400749568 https://twitter.com/sguyenet/status/669638118400749568

anenefan 4y ago
Unsure what message you're implying or just sugar consumption in the US has declined more than 15% since 1999. Though similar decline is reflected at a couple other online areas [1] [2] I am however not going to research and quantify that ... besides I don't trust the big food industry to provide accurate figures, I'd only confidently trust a totally independent facility that confirmed overall sugar and easy to digest carbohydrate levels in each food item and average consumption by the population. Sugars like sucrose and HFCS rather than regular corn syrup, yield 50% and >42% fructose respectively. It's consumption in great quantity does not seem to have a major impact on some people, but certainly others are prone to the vast amount of fructose consumed. Harvard iirc showed how the extra fructose in diet corresponded to longer villi in the gut. Obviously there's other factors at play, but excess fructose consumption is nonetheless an obvious change in diet to what those earlier than 60 or 70 years ago. [1] https://www.healthyfoodamerica.org/sugartoolkit_overview_original https://www.healthyfoodamerica.org/sugartoolkit_overview_ori... [2] https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Sugar-consumption-in-the-US-The-black-line-is-sugar-from-cane-beet-and-corn-combined_fig19_283462716 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Sugar-consumption-in-the...
- 876978095789789 4y ago
  > Unsure what message you're implying or just sugar consumption in the US has declined more than 15% since 1999. I'm implying excess sugar consumption, including HFCS, is not the cause of the obesity epidemic. No one's telling you to eat it, though.
  - anenefan 4y ago
    One thing that is striking is those who have the means to eat well and more diverse foods seem to fare better weight wise, yet those who are poorer and have to rely on processed foods to make up the bulk of their diet as it's cheaper and affordable, where they can not avoid the added sugar with fructose derivatives, don't fare so well even if they try to add in better things to their diet to balance it like a small amount fruit and vegetables. I for one, noted first hand the very stark difference cutting down the fructose had, not just on weight, but how it modified my mood and appetite. In actual fact the one problem I had with my little self experiment was my diet got worse balance wise. There was no placebo effect to account for IMO, since trying for years on actively planning time to be very active did not help much, though my muscles were better for it, I had expected a mere change in removing fructose to be on a time scale of at best 10 months, and expected more likely if it worked at all, after a year I might be lucky enough to lose 10 kg (approx 20 pounds) ... instead on starting the low fructose diet, my mood notably improved in a week or so (I didn't think I had a mood issue - I am what I am, so that was unexpected,) and I didn't shed 10 kg but 25 kg in two or three months (I no longer recall the exact time frame) ... and while I did that I was no longer push bike riding where I might easily clock 100 km (60 miles) in a day but still moderately active but not that active. Seemed clear to me though a few people would not respond the same, but since I'm not unique, many would also fare similarly as well. The only issue was the tedious nature of introducing and staying true to ensuring that sugar consumed was far more glucose than what broke down into fructose, even though I still ate a small amount of processed food - most sugar was fortunately by way of hot drinks consumed during the day. To say it was actually something else in my case, equates to blaming eating a pie, a couple boiled whole potatoes or same ration of pumpkin pieces, 3 cups of milk per day for my weight problem back in my 20s ... I really wasn't eating very much, though sugar was powering my days.