Category Archives: Trans fat

Ketosis in an evolutionary context

Humans are unique in their remarkable ability to enter ketosis.  They’re also situated near the top of the food chain.  Coincidence?

During starvation, humans rapidly enter ketosis; they do this better than king penguins, and bears don’t do it at all.

Starvation ketosis

 

Starvation ketosis

Humans maintain a high level of functionality during starvation.  We can still hunt & plan; some would even argue it’s a more finely tuned state, cognitively.  And that’s important, because if we became progressively weaker and slower, chances of acquiring food would rapidly decline.

Perhaps this is why fasting bears just sleep most of the time: no ketones = no bueno..?

Observation: chronic ketosis is relatively rare in nature.  Angelo Coppola interpreted that to mean animals may have evolved a protective mechanism against ketosis (if you were following along, please let me know if this is a misrepresentation).

Continue reading

Share

MOA of MCTs – black magic or something less?

MCTs provide a respectable boost in diet-induced thermogenesis (in some studies [eg, Kasai 2002  & Clegg 2012], but not others [Alexandrou 2007]), but I don’t think that’s what does it.

The alternative?  MCTs aren’t “linoleate.” (sorry for lack of suspense)

Alcohol + MCTs vs. corn oil (from Kirpich 2013):

Kirpich

Further, feed rats a diet rich in either coconut oil, olive oil, safflower oil, evening primrose oil, or menhaden oil… and eventually the fat stored in their bodies reflect those fats – eg, linoleate only accumulated in the tissues of those fed safflower & evening primrose oils (Yaqoob 1995) (expect similar results with soybean & corn oils).

Researchers constantly refer to MCTs & coconut oil as “saturated fats,” but I always thought the chain length should be recognized.  Perhaps.  But with regard to certain benefits (eg, hepatoprotection), perhaps not.

Cacao butter has a lot of stearate (a fully saturated 18-carbon fatty acid) but not much linoleate or MCTs.  This linoleate may very well be more of a detriment than stearate or MCTs are a benefit… (with regard to certain benefits [eg, hepatoprotection])Beef and chocolate

(Leslie Roberts, 1988) (she’s talking about stearate)

Continue reading

Share

Molested fats, Op. 139

or
Trans fats, part IV

Proceed with caution, this is an exploratory post.  Replacing CakesCookiesPiesPastriesBreadCerealsBiscuitsPizzaMuffins with [insert any whole food item here] is just a good idea.  And more reasons to eat dark chocolate.

In Inflammatory, trans, or linoleate? the idea was explored that it might not be the theorized textbook pro-inflammatory end products of omega-6 fats that give them a bad rap, but rather the foods that contain them – ie, “cakes, cookies, pies, and pastries” (Kris-Etherton et al., 2012 NHANES), or “bread, cereals, cakes, biscuits, pies, pizza, and muffins” (Meyer et al., 2003 from down under).

dark chocolate

Further, what starts out as an omega-6 fat can easily become peroxidized or isomerized into an oxidized or trans fat, respectively, via industrial molestation or just plain old cooking (eg, Romero et al., 1998, Marmesat et al., 2012, & Minami et al., 2012) – even just a few minutes in the microwave (Herzallah et al., 2005)!  I don’t know exactly what all of these end products are for sure, but they might look something like this:ox linoleate

Thus, the culprit may not be native Dc9,c1218:2n6 linoleate.

Continue reading

Share

Inflammatory, trans, or linoleate?

As much as I’d like to say this is the nail-in-the-coffin, omega-6 causes irreversible fatality, I have a confession.

I believe it’s the empty calories, not the inflammatory omega-6 devil linoleate.  Biscuits, cookies, processed foods of all shapes and sizes are simply the delivery vehicles for industrially modified and probably “trans” fats that started out innocent enough as soybean oil or omega-6 vegetable oils.

linoleate is the quintessential omega-6 fatty acid and is found at high levels in vegetable oils.  just like the omega-3 linolenate found in soybean oil, processing of the oils usually damages them – turns them into trans fats and/or oxidizes them (by “oxidizes” I don’t mean fat burning, see pictorial below)

So despite the impeccable statistical anvil thrown at these data, which seem to clearly implicate linoleate, I don’t think it’s the linoleate.  H E double hockey sticks, we probably don’t get enough normal unmodified linoleate.  Unless you’re cracking shells, even “raw” almonds are Pasteurized.  

unshelled nuts

don’t sanitize your food.  your meat needn’t be burned, nor your nuts Pasteurized.

Continue reading

Share

Corn. A riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma.

Utterly.  Shocked.  is how I feel gazing upon the ingredients listed on one particular popular snack food.  And it isn’t one of those fancy gourmet all-natural whole food snacks, it is a classic that is probably in the kitchen of every child-wielding household.

Corn, corn oil, and salt.  And salt doesn’t even count, so it might just as well have said corn and corn oil, which could be summarized as “corn.”  Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you, the reigning champion of snack food sorcery, the red-headed stepchild (no offense) of international superpower PepsiCo… Fritos.  Using only corn, the wizards of Frito-Lay are turning this:into this:

and that’s without the use of trans fat, gluten, artificial additives, dairy, msg, onions, or soy.  They’re Kosher too.

Continue reading

Share

skinny is the new fat, Op. 95

I’ve been known to rave about the phenomenon of metabolically obese normal weight (MONW), or fat skinny people.  In brief, this population exhibits insulin resistance, metabolic syndrome, hypertension… all things usually associated with obesity… but they’re lean.   In fat skinny people, I wrote about two epidemiological studies on markedly different populations (Americans and Koreans); these two peoples have virtually nothing in common (culture, foods, genetics, etc.).  Despite these differences, there was a strong similarity in the macronutrients associated with metabolic dysregulation in otherwise lean individuals (aka fat skinny people): in the first study, high carb and low protein diets were the major culprits, with a smaller contribution of low fat.  In the second study, high carb and low fat were at fault (protein intake wasn’t analyzed).

A new study that is about to hit the presses didn’t intend to say anything about fat skinny people, but they weren’t counting on ME.

Body mass index, diabetes, hypertension, and short-term mortality: a population-based observational study, 2000-2006 (Jerant and Franks, 2012)

This study included over 50,000 people aged 18-90.  Between the years 2000 and 2005 about 3% died, which was statistically just enough to ask “why?”  In brief, they compared body weight, blood pressure, smoking, and diabetes with mortality risk.  

In each BMI category, the square is higher than the circle.  DM = diabetes (the squares).  Diabetes increases mortality risk independent of BMI.  Now just focusing on the squares; as you move from left to right, body weight is increasing but mortality risk in diabetics is decreasing.  A 150 pound diabetic has a higher mortality risk than a 200 pound diabetic, who has a higher mortality risk than a 250 pound diabetic.  Huh?

Perhaps the lean diabetics are fat skinny people, the elusive MONW?  If so, according to the research discussed HERE, their diet might have made them that way.  The lean diabetics (aka fat skinny people aka MONW aka NOD [non-obese diabetics]) eat less protein, more carbs, and less fat.  This might be a reach, but collectively (1 + 2 + 3) these data imply a poor diet might be worse than obesity for diabetics.

disclaimer: this is not true in most circumstances, i.e., skinny people can usually whatever they want.  There are skinny diabetics, but they are significantly rarer than obese diabetics.  In other words, most type II diabetics are obese, the lean ones just eat a crappier diet. You might be wondering: “how are they skinny if they eat so poorly?”  My guess is that they just haven’t eaten enough of it [yet]; it’s rare to stay lean on a “crappier diet.”

So is skinny the new fat?  Being lean with type II diabetes is an indicator of EMPTY CALORIES; it could be riskier for all-cause mortality than obesity in diabetics.

“Attention endocrinologists, diabetologists, and general practitioners: don’t assume diet is not a problem in your skinny diabetics because they are skinny.  Indeed, diet might be THE problem.”

And no, if you’re a skinny diabetic, this DOESN’T mean gaining weight will make you live longer.  it just doesn’t.

 

it just doesn’t.

calories proper

Share

the opposite of food, Op. 76

Processed non-junk food

or

as close to “non-junk” as processed food can be

Notice the inverse relationship between fat content and the number of ingredients in these three commercially available sour cream products.  This is processed food.

Regular:
Cultured pasteurized grade A cream and milk, enzymes.

Low-Fat:
Cultured Milk, Cream, Nonfat Dry Milk, Whey, Modified Corn Starch, Sodium Phosphate, Guar Gum, Carrageenan, Calcium Sulfate, Locust Bean Gum, Gelatin, Vitamin A Palmitate.

Fat Free:
Cultured Low-fat Milk, Modified Corn Starch, Whey Protein Concentrate, Propylene Glycol Monoester, Artificial Color, Gelatin, Sodium Phosphate, Agar Gum, Xanthan Gum, Sodium Citrate, Locust Bean Gum, Vitamin A Palmitate.

 

 

Fat-Free Half & Half

not cream

In general, “Half & Half” refers to a 50:50 blend of whole milk and cream.  People think it’s better than cream because it has less fat.  Whole milk is about 3% fat by weight, while cream is about 30%.  Mix ‘em together and you end up with Half & Half, which is somewhere in between (12-14%).  Fat has a profound effect on flavor and texture… so how exactly does “Fat-Free Half & Half” taste and feel just like regular Half & Half?!?  Muah ha ha ha haaaa!

divide and conquer

From what I can gather, the fat is replaced with corn syrup and pharmaceutical grade thickeners, emulsifiers, etc., scientifically engineered to mimic the precise flavor and texture of Half & Half.  There are even artificial colors added to make it look like cream.  There are artificial colors added to make it look like cream?  AYFKM?  For some reason, I find this oddly offensive.  It is to these artificial colors which I object.  I want this concoction (that is advertised as better than cream) to look like whatever “corn syrup, carrageenan, sodium citrate, dipotassium phosphate, mono and diglycerides, and vitamin A palmitate” looks like.  And it should release a pale green mist upon contact with coffee.

The sugar in Fat-Free Half & Half comes from corn syrup, while that in real dairy is lactose.  Glucose is sweeter than lactose, and there’s 2-3x more sugar in Fat-Free Half & Half.  Does this mean people use less of it?  I doubt it, because the additional sweetness is probably necessary to compensate for the lack of fat.

And what about all the other additives in Fat-Free Half & Half?  This is reminiscent of the introduction of trans fats into our diet by way of replacing butter and lard with margarine and shortening…

Carrageenan is partially responsible for improving the mouthfeel and texture of Fat-Free Half & Half.

carrageenan. Looks scary, right?

At high doses, it’s an inflammatory gut irritant.  Given coffee’s not-so-gut-friendly reputation, do you really want to push it with carrageenan?

On another note, carrageenan is used to design some of the most beautifully artistic desserts.

In this context, I’m reminded of the phrase: “the dose makes the poison.”  In other words, those dishes are a dietary rarity, reserved for the most special of occasions.  At that level of exposure, it could be a blend of carrageenan, trans fat, sucrose, and Red #40, you could eat 5 of them at a time, and you’d never experience any malevolent effects.  But what about a few tablespoons in your coffee every morning for 30 years???  (alternatively, perhaps I’m underestimating carrageenan exposure a bit) (other, more sordid uses of carrageenan)

Avoid processed foods, especially when they’re no more convenient or healthy their conventional counterparts.

 

calories proper

 

P.S.  Perhaps I was a little too hard on Fat-Free Half & Half.  It’s not as bad as microwave popcorn, or this classic:

One 43 gram Twinkie contains 5 grams of fat, 25 grams of sugars, 1 gram of protein, no fibre, 150 kcal, and over 35 ingredients:

  • Enriched Wheat Flour – enriched with ferrous sulphate, B vitamins (niacin, thiamine mononitrate, ribofavin and folic acid).
  • Sugar
  • Corn syrup
  • Water
  • High fructose corn syrup
  • Vegetable shortening – containing one or more of partially hydrogenated soybean, cottonseed or canola oil, and beef fat.  [trans fat]
  • Dextrose
  • Whole eggs
  • Modified corn starch
  • Cellulose gum
  • Whey
  • Leavenings (sodium acid pyrophosphate, baking soda, monocalcium phosphate)
  • Salt
  • Cornstarch
  • Corn flour
  • Corn syrup solids
  • Mono and diglycerides
  • Soy lecithin
  • Polysorbate 60
  • Dextrin
  • Calcium caseinate
  • Sodium stearol lactylate
  • Wheat gluten
  • Calcium sulphate
  • Natural and artificial flavours
  • Caramel colour
  • Sorbic acid (to retain freshness)
  • Colour added (yellow 5, red 40)

 

 

Share

Non-sequiter nutrition

(or another over-caffeinated soapbox rant)

Taxing junk food?  If I thought the government had a clue what constituted “junk,” maybe I’d view this more favorably.  But my gut says no.

“Bad food? Tax it, and Subsidize Vegetables”  Mr. Bittman, we subsidize the hell out of corn; what good has that done?   I don’t think controlling diet via junk food taxes is the right way to healthify America, but if I had to choose I’d say shift subsidies away from corn and soybean, and toward things like organic spinach and grass fed beef.   This would impact a lot of foods containing ingredients that are [IMO] barely suitable for human consumption like high fructose corn syrup and trans fats (and corn & soybean oils).

Denmark and Romania taxing saturated fat?  Really?  we already went through this when we traded saturated fat-rich butter for diabesogenic trans fat-rich margarine-  (“saturated fat”).  A tax on saturated fat is non-specific; it hits many healthy foods and not enough junk food.  And it is, by definition, a tax NOT on the deceptively unsaturated trans fats.  Alternatively, subsidizing corn and soybeans is just making soda and junk food cheaper.  

do NOT eat at KFC in Hungary, Peru, or Poland.  or anywhere.  that’s microwave popcorn levels of trans fat.

Better nutrition education and evidence-based recommendations are far better solutions, IMHO, but we aren’t a country of philosopher’s.  I’ve touched a bench on which the sign “wet paint” was taped, and I probably also touched a red hot stove despite my mother’s warning against it.  oh well.

 

calories proper

Share

USDA vs. nutrition, round II

The school lunch program is screwed.

First the USDA modifies the definition of a vegetable to include pizza.  Now they significantly altered their standards for school lunches to include fewer healthy foods and more USDA-approved ones (see report at the USDA’s website).  In brief, this move further reduces the nutrition of school lunches and will likely do more harm than good.  Here’s why:

In this cross-sectional Swedish study, parents recorded 7-day food diaries for their 4-year old children who then went in for a regular checkup.

Metabolic markers in relation to nutrition and growth in healthy 4-y-old children in Sweden (Garemo et al., 2006 AJCN)

On a 1,400 kcalorie diet, these children were consuming roughly 15% protein, 33% fat, and 52% carbs (about 20% of which came from sucrose).  That seems like a lot of calories, but besides playing all day, 4 year old children are also growing at an incredible rate.

Interesting finding numbers 1 & 2:  Children who got most of their calories from fat had the lowest BMI (i.e., they were the leanest), and the opposite was observed for carbs.

When divided into groups of normal weight vs. overweight and obese, some interesting and non-intuitive patterns emerged.  For example, lean kids don’t eat less food; but they do eat fewer carbs and less sucrose (and make up the difference by eating more fat and saturated fat).

Some of the weaker correlations showed:
-total calorie intake was associated with growth (logical)
-total carbohydrate intake was associated with increased fat mass (unfortunate yet also logical)
-total fat intake was associated with decreased fat mass (interesting)

And those who ate the most saturated fat had the least amount of excess body fat. (more on this below)

Fortunately, in a young child, a poor diet hasn’t had enough time to significantly impact their metabolic health; as such no macronutrient was associated, either positively or negatively, with insulin resistance [yet].

In a more appropriately titled follow-up, Swedish pre-school children eat too much junk food and sucrose (Garemo et al., 2007 Acta Paediatrica), Garemo reported that most of their carbs came from bread, cakes, and cookies, while most of the sucrose came from fruit, juices, jam, soft drinks, and sweets.  And WOW, go figure- most of the fat came from meat, chicken, sausage, liver, eggs, and dairy; NOT vegetable oils.

And in a mammoth dissertation, Eriksson (2009) confirmed many of these findings in a larger cohort of 8-year old Swedish children and had this to say about dairy fat:

The open boxes represent overweight kids, the closed boxes are lean kids.  Going from left to right, in either the open or closed boxes, BMI declines with increasing intake of full fat milk (perhaps parents should reconsider skim milk?).  Eriksson also confirmed that saturated fat intake was strongly associated with reduced body weight.  Interestingly, she mentioned that food intake patterns are established early in life, so it might be prudent to remove sugars and other nutrient poor carb-rich foods, and introduce nutritious whole foods as early as possible.  I’m not exactly sure how she assessed patterns of food intake establishment, but it seems logical.  Especially in light of the following study… we’ve seen 4 year olds, 8 year olds, and now we have 12-19 year olds.  The relationship between diet and health is consistent across all age groups.

Virtually all of the above data in Swedish children seem to suggest dietary saturated fat, whether it’s from beef, sausage, eggs, whole fat dairy, or liver (i.e., WHOLE food sources; NOT hydrogenated vegetable oils), is associated with reduced fat mass.  Metabolic abnormalities were not present, probably because the children were simply too young (although body weight seems to respond relatively quickly, other downstream effects of poor nutrition take years to accumulate before symptoms develop).

An American study about nutrient density and metabolic syndrome was recently published.  These kids were exposed to poor nutrition for just long enough to experience some of those malevolent effects.

Dietary fiber and nutrient density are inversely associated with the metabolic syndrome in US adolescents (Carlson et al., 2011 Journal of the American Dietetic Association)

The figure below divides fiber (a proxy for good nutrition; i.e., leafy vegetables, beans, etc.) and saturated fat into groups of least and most amounts comsumed. The lowest fiber intake was 2.9 grams for every 1,000 kcal, and 9.3% of these kids already had metabolic syndrome; the highest fiber intake was 10.7 grams / 1,000 kcal and 3.2% had metabolic syndrome.  Thus, consuming a fiber-rich [nutrient dense] diet is associated with a significantly reduced risk of metabolic syndrome.

The next rows are saturated fat.  The lowest saturated fat intake was 6.9 grams / 1,000 kcal and 7.2% had metabolic syndrome; the highest saturated fat intake was 18 grams / 1,000 kcal and 6.7% had metabolic syndrome…. huh?  While it didn’t reach statistical significance, the trend for saturated fat paralleled that of a “nutrient dense” diet.  Is it possible that saturated fat might be part of a nutrient dense diet?   if saturated fat comes in the form of red meat, liver, eggs, etc., then yes, it is part of a nutrient dense diet.  This conclusion evaded both the study authors and the media.

In 4 and 8 year old Swedish children, those who ate the most saturated fat had the least excess fat mass.  In 12 – 19 year old American adolescents, those who ate the most saturated fat had the lowest risk for metabolic syndrome.

Is it too much of a stretch to connect these ideas by saying that in the short run, a low saturated fat (nutrient poor, carb-rich) diet predisposes to obesity; and in the long run it predisposes to metabolic syndrome  ???

Collectively, these data suggest a diet based on whole foods like meat and eggs, including animal fats, with nutrient dense sources of fiber (e.g., leafy vegetables) but without a lot of nutrient poor carb-rich or high sugar foods, may be the healthiest diet for children.  

Flashback: recap of “USDA vs. nutrition, round I”
USDA: 1
Nutrition: 0
They made pizza a vegetable and insiders suspect that next they’ll try to make it a vitamin.

USDA vs. nutrition, round II

USDA: replacing normal milk with low fat milk
nutrition: full-fat milk was associated with lower BMI in both lean and obese children (see the Eriksson figure above)

USDA: increasing nutrient poor carb-rich options
nutrition: this was associated with increased fat mass in children (Garumen et al., see figures above)

USDA: reducing saturated fat as much as possible
nutrition: reduced saturated fat was associated with excess fat mass in children and metabolic syndrome in adolescents.

Such changes will have an immeasurable long-term impact if children grow up thinking these are healthy options.  Finally, this blog post does not contain a comprehensive analysis of saturated fat intake and health outcomes in children, but the USDA’s new regulations should have been accompanied by one.  In other words, these regulations should not have been based on the studies discussed above, but the studies discussed above should have been considered when the USDA was crafting their recommendations.  Obviously, they weren’t.

calories proper

Share

Fructose vs. The Laws of Energy Balance

Exclusively from literature featured in past blog posts, e.g. HERE and HERE, excessive fructose consumption seriously deranges metabolism.  Furthermore, fructose pre-disposes to and exacerbates leptin resistance, which is one of the most proximal causes of obesity viz. overeating.  However, this doesn’t exonerate processed foods, modern grain-based diets, or trans-fats because they frequently co-exist.  Many popular breakfast cereals contain all three, and IMO a fructose-free breakfast cereal wouldn’t do much in the treatment and/or prevention of obesity.  Just eat better.  And we might even get “low-fructose” foods on grocery store shelves in the near future (but don’t hold your breath, food companies LOVE their fructose).

Consuming fructose-sweetened, not glucose-sweetened, beverages increases visceral adiposity and lipids and decreases insulin sensitivity in overweight/obese humans (Stanhope et al., 2009 Journal of Clinical Intervention)

Consumption of fructose-sweetened beverages for 10 weeks reduces net fat oxidation and energy expenditure in overweight/obese men and women (Cox et al., 2011 European Journal of Clinical Nutrition)

Metabolic responses to prolonged consumption of glucose- and fructose-sweetened beverages are not associated with postprandial or 24-h glucose and insulin excursions (Stanhope et al., 2011 American Journal of Clinical Nutrition)

These studies came out in a few separate publications, were ultra-high budget, and used very advanced techniques to quantify energy expenditure and body composition.  AND much care was taken to ensure the subjects were truly weight stable when appropriate (inpatients for two weeks in the beginning and end of the study so all of their food intake and anthropological measurements could be assessed accurately).  The experiment consisted of feeding subjects a sugar-sweetened beverage, either glucose or fructose, equivalent to 25% of their daily energy requirements.

During the inpatient portions, subjects were fed a standardized diet of 15% protein, 20% fat, and 55% carb:

Note the differences in GI & GL (bottom two rows).   Fructose has a negligible impact on glycemia because, well, it’s fructose (not glucose), and it doesn’t magically transform into glucose after ingestion.

When left to their own free will, the patients pretty much ate the same:

In general, after a period of adaptation, their intake of other foods should have declined by 25% to compensate for the additional calories from the sugar drinks, but sugar seems to hijack the appetite set point – first row in the table above; calories were 20-25% higher, almost the exact amount of calories in their sugar drinks – therefore all subjects gained a few pounds (1% of initial body weight) (and then they went back on good behavior when they were being observed in the metabolic ward):

Herein we have the first unexpected pearl: the fructose group gained visceral fat (VAT) whereas the glucose group gained subcutaneous fat (SCAT) (eerily similar to what is seen with trans-fats!).

Exhibit A:

The glucose group actually gained slightly more fat mass than the fructose group, but most of the excess weight was deposited in the relatively inert SCAT, or “extraabdominal” regions.  The fructose group, on the other hand, gained it all in VAT (apple, not pear).  Abdominal fat and waist circumference increased significantly in the fructose drinkers.  FYI that is very interesting.  And it wasn’t caused by individual differences- it’s not like some people were more predisposed to gain more VAT than SCAT; these subjects were randomized.  Diet, or more specifically, dietary sugars caused this differential fat storage.  Amazing.

Exhibit B:

This figure shows the differences in fat gain.  The glucose group gained less VAT than SCAT, while the fructose group did the opposite.  Genetics had nothing to do with this.  It is diet.  It is nutrition.  For the love of God people, it is nutrition.

In lieu of the recent publication by Dr. Bray, it is interesting to note the second pearl: an example of the irrelevance of the laws of thermodynamics (universal) with respect to the Laws of Energy Balance (conjured up by yours truly).  Namely, energy expenditure is affected by the diet… IOW, the laws of thermodynamics are not violated, but all calories are not equal (THERE. I said it… on the record, in cyberspace, for all of eternity).

This nuance is introduced in figure 2:

Divide and conquer

On the left, fat oxidation is slightly lower in the glucose group.  This is expected, because carb oxidation should have increased due to the increased carb consumption (in the form of the glucose drink).  But as seen in the right panel, fat oxidation declined significantly in the fructose group.  From this, we would expect fat gain to be greater in the fructose group compared to the glucose group … but it wasn’t.  Artefact?  Error in measurement?  I don’t know how, but this appears to be a violation of the Laws of Energy Balance (which is impossible).  UNLESS energy expenditure declined more in the fructose group than in the glucose group.

Exhibit C:

And it did!  Both groups increased their sugar consumption (by design), and energy expenditure declined in both groups (they all gained weight).  The fructose group gained about a pound less than the glucose group, but consumed slightly fewer calories on average.  So the reduced fat oxidation didn’t enhance fat gain in the fructose group because food intake declined proportionately; and they maintained energy balance relative to the glucose group because energy expenditure was slightly lower (this is complicated).

To be clear, the fructose-induced VAT deposition is not explained by reduced fat oxidation as that would imply less fat gain overall, relative to the glucose group (which didn’t happen).

Fructose-induced VAT deposition is a product of the deranged nutrient partitioning caused by fructose itself.  It’s a dangerous lil’ bugger.  How does fructose conspire with the metabolic machinery to selectively enhance visceral adiposity?  Not sure, but it might have something to do with insulin.  Glucose but not fructose stimulates insulin secretion, and SCAT is more sensitive to the anti-lipolytic effects of insulin than VAT.  The overall fat gain was similar in both groups, in accord with the Laws of Energy Balance.   But insulin tends to drive fat into metabolically safer SCAT.  An example of this concept in practice can be seen by looking at obese insulin resistant people.  In this population, SCAT is less responsive to insulin, relativeto lean people, and indeed, they have significantly greater visceral fat mass.  So fructose doesn’t trigger an insulin response, which means excess calories are less likely to be stored in SCAT, but since this can’t violate the Laws of Energy Balance the calories must go somewhere…  deposited into the notorious VAT bank where they not only still make you fat but also initiate a storm of metabolic abnormalities.

 

calories proper

Share