Guest guest Posted May 25, 2005 Report Share Posted May 25, 2005 Hi All, It seems from the pdf- but not Medline abstract-available below excerpts of a paper that fructose in our diets is bad. Fructose is part of sucrose, but now it seems that they add fructose to many drinks. Dietary Fructose: Implications for Dysregulation of Energy Homeostasis and Lipid/Carbohydrate Metabolism. Havel, J.. Nutrition Reviews, May2005, Vol. 63 Issue 5, p133, 25p Abstract: Fructose intake and the prevalence of obesity have both increased over the past two to three decades. Compared with glucose, the hepatic metabolism of fructose favors lipogenesis, which may contribute to hyperlipidemia and obesity. Fructose does not increase insulin and leptin or suppress ghrelin, which suggests an endocrine mechanism by which it induces a positive energy balance. This review examines the available data on the effects of dietary fructose on energy homeostasis and lipid/carbohydrate metabolism. Recent publications, studies in human subjects, and areas in which additional research is needed are emphasized. .... SOURCES AND INTAKE OF DIETARY CARBOHYDRATE Dietary Carbohydrate Intake The National Academy of Sciences has recommended that between 45% and 65% of energy be derived from carbohydrates, 20% to 35% from fat, and 10% to 35% from protein, with no more than 25% of total energy from added sugars.5 Recommendations by the American Heart Association 6 and the American Diabetes Associa-tion 7 fall well within these broad guidelines: approxi-mately 50% of energy from carbohydrate, 30% from fat, and 20% from protein. There are two major, population-based methodological approaches for estimating energy and nutrient intakes. Food disappearance data reflect the nationwide availability of foods and thus tend to over-estimate consumption. In contrast, survey-based ap-proaches that rely primarily on the ability of respondents to recall categories and amounts of previous intake tend to underestimate consumption but have the advantage of estimating intake characteristics in distinct subsets of the population. Results from the US Department of Agricul-ture Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals (CSFII) suggest that from 1994 to 1996, non-vegetarians consumed 50% of energy from carbohydrate, 33% from fat, and 16% from protein, with 15% to 16% of energy provided by added sugars. Data from the National Health and Nutrition Survey (NHANES) as reported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)8 indicate that carbohydrate intake increased by about 62 g/d in women and by about 69 g/d in men between 1971 and 2000. .... ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This work was supported by Academic Network, Portland, Oregon. Academic Network receives grant funding from the Sugar Association, the Salt Institute, and Dairy Management, Inc. ... Al Pater, PhD; email: old542000@... __________________________________________________ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 25, 2005 Report Share Posted May 25, 2005 Hi Al: On the other side of the coin, if one can restrain one's caloric intake some fructose may help protect against prostate cancer, apparently because of improved vitamin D utilization ............ PMID: 9458087 Given who the authors are, the data probably are from the Physicians Health Study. Rodney. --- In , Al Pater <old542000@y...> wrote: > Hi All, > > It seems from the pdf- but not Medline abstract-available below excerpts of a paper > that fructose in our diets is bad. Fructose is part of sucrose, but now it seems > that they add fructose to many drinks. > > Dietary Fructose: Implications for Dysregulation of Energy Homeostasis and > Lipid/Carbohydrate Metabolism. > Havel, J.. > Nutrition Reviews, May2005, Vol. 63 Issue 5, p133, 25p > > Abstract: Fructose intake and the prevalence of obesity have both increased over the > past two to three decades. Compared with glucose, the hepatic metabolism of fructose > favors lipogenesis, which may contribute to hyperlipidemia and obesity. Fructose > does not increase insulin and leptin or suppress ghrelin, which suggests an > endocrine mechanism by which it induces a positive energy balance. This review > examines the available data on the effects of dietary fructose on energy homeostasis > and lipid/carbohydrate metabolism. Recent publications, studies in human subjects, > and areas in which additional research is needed are emphasized. > > ... SOURCES AND INTAKE OF DIETARY CARBOHYDRATE > Dietary Carbohydrate Intake > The National Academy of Sciences has recommended > that between 45% and 65% of energy be derived from > carbohydrates, 20% to 35% from fat, and 10% to 35% > from protein, with no more than 25% of total energy > from added sugars.5 Recommendations by the American > Heart Association 6 and the American Diabetes Associa-tion > 7 fall well within these broad guidelines: approxi-mately > 50% of energy from carbohydrate, 30% from fat, > and 20% from protein. There are two major, population-based > methodological approaches for estimating energy > and nutrient intakes. Food disappearance data reflect the > nationwide availability of foods and thus tend to over-estimate > consumption. In contrast, survey-based ap-proaches > that rely primarily on the ability of respondents > to recall categories and amounts of previous intake tend > to underestimate consumption but have the advantage of > estimating intake characteristics in distinct subsets of the > population. Results from the US Department of Agricul-ture > Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals > (CSFII) suggest that from 1994 to 1996, non-vegetarians > consumed 50% of energy from carbohydrate, 33% from > fat, and 16% from protein, with 15% to 16% of energy > provided by added sugars. Data from the National Health > and Nutrition Survey (NHANES) as reported by the > Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)8 > indicate that carbohydrate intake increased by about 62 > g/d in women and by about 69 g/d in men between 1971 > and 2000. > > ... ACKNOWLEDGMENTS > This work was supported by Academic Network, > Portland, Oregon. Academic Network receives grant > funding from the Sugar Association, the Salt Institute, > and Dairy Management, Inc. ... > > Al Pater, PhD; email: old542000@y... > > __________________________________________________ > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 25, 2005 Report Share Posted May 25, 2005 Hi All, Cancer trends are provided, in this case for Germany, but the results would probably be fairly representative of most Western cancer data. They suggest that the risk for dying from colon cancer is much higher than for prostate cancer. Also, the high glycemic load from fructose will be harmful overall. See: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve & db=pubmed & dopt=Abstra\ ct & list_uids=15668487 & query_hl=24 .. This is pdf-available. For the below, some cancers did do much better and patients with them survive at high percentages. However, these cancers tend to be those whose frequencies are relatively low. The paper discussed here provides in the below the incidences of the cancers, their trends and the 5- and 10-year survival rates. The available pdf and excerpt after the Medline citation are described below. Brenner H, Stegmaier C, Ziegler H. Long-term survival of cancer patients in Germany achieved by the beginning of the third millenium. Ann Oncol. 2005 Apr 22; [Epub ahead of print] PMID: 15849221 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve & db=pubmed & dopt=Abstra\ ct & list_uids=15849221 & query_hl=37 Table 1. Numbers of patients by cancer site and years of diagnosis included in the analysis, and 5- and 10-year relative survival rates for the 1990–1992 cohort and the 2000–2002 period --------------------------------------------------- Cancer site ICD-9 Total number of cases 5-year relative survival [% (SE)] 10-year relative survival [% (SE)] -------------------------------------------------- ----1990–2002 1990–1992 2000–2002 1990–1992 cohort 2000–2002 period 1990–1992 cohort 2000–2002 period ---------------------------------------------------- Oral cavity 140–149 2308 546 523 41.0 (2.3) 51.0 (2.4) 30.6 (2.3) 39.7 (2.6) Oesophagus 150 777 147 191 8.7 (2.5) 24.3 (3.5) 5.6 (2.2) 18.8 (4.4) Stomach 151 2753 692 551 27.7 (2.0) 35.1 (2.4) 26.8 (2.4) 31.4 (2.8) Colon 153 6227 1324 1589 53.7 (1.7) 61.2 (1.6) 50.3 (2.1) 58.6 (2.1) Rectum 154 3901 807 980 49.7 (2.1) 59.9 (2.0) 44.3 (2.5) 53.7 (2.5) Liver 155 663 121 210 4.0 (2.0) 8.3 (2.7) 1.3 (1.3) 5.2 (2.5) Gallbladder 156 877 207 187 14.1 (2.8) 17.6 (3.3) 16.3 (3.6) 15.8 (3.5) Pancreas 157 1329 263 364 5.3 (1.6) 5.4 (1.4) 5.0 (1.7) 4.6 (1.5) Larynx 161 747 211 155 62.2 (3.9) 62.3 (4.4) 47.3 (4.4) 50.5 (5.0) Lung 162 7565 1696 1834 12.0 (0.9) 15.4 (1.0) 10.0 (0.9) 13.5 (1.1) Melanoma of the skin 172 1315 254 378 81.3 (3.1) 87.1 (2.5) 80.5 (3.7) 85.8 (3.2) Breast 174 8658 1801 2200 75.7 (1.3) 80.6 (1.1) 64.9 (1.5) 69.0 (1.5) Cervix uteri 180 1078 270 209 61.0 (3.2) 60.4 (3.3) 56.6 (3.5) 55.2 (3.6) Corpus uteri 182 1874 442 428 81.8 (2.5) 82.8 (2.5) 80.8 (3.3) 81.9 (3.3) Ovary 183 1244 267 305 38.8 (3.4) 45.7 (3.4) 31.9 (3.6) 40.9 (3.8) Prostate 185 5628 887 1816 79.0 (2.3) 87.6 (1.6) 69.7 (3.2) 77.9 (2.7) Testis 186 584 128 142 92.3 (2.6) 100 (1.1) 93.2 (2.8) 100 (1.4) Urinary bladder 188 2004 642 426 68.0 (2.5) 58.9 (3.3) 65.8 (3.3) 59.3 (4.0) Kidney 189 2105 479 511 62.4 (2.7) 68.5 (2.6) 57.7 (3.2) 66.1 (3.2) Brain, nervous system 191–192 878 175 201 20.7 (3.2) 22.7 (3.1) 19.7 (3.4) 20.9 (3.2) Thyroid 193 647 138 147 72.4 (4.4) 95.0 (2.9) 76.3 (5.0) 96.0 (3.8) Lymphomas 200–202 2052 473 514 64.7 (2.7) 67.2 (2.6) 53.6 (3.0) 59.8 (3.1) Multiple myeloma 203 597 119 138 33.3 (5.0) 27.6 (4.3) 22.6 (5.1) 23.0 (4.4) Leukaemias 204–208 1284 299 259 45.8 (3.4) 45.2 (3.4) 33.7 (3.5) 34.1 (3.6) ---------------------------------------- ICD, International Classification of Diseases; SE, standard error. --- Rodney <perspect1111@...> wrote: > Hi Al: > > On the other side of the coin, if one can restrain one's caloric > intake some fructose may help protect against prostate cancer, > apparently because of improved vitamin D utilization ............ > > PMID: 9458087 > > Given who the authors are, the data probably are from the Physicians > Health Study. > > Rodney. > > > > Hi All, > > > > It seems from the pdf- but not Medline abstract-available below > excerpts of a paper > > that fructose in our diets is bad. Fructose is part of sucrose, > but now it seems > > that they add fructose to many drinks. > > > > Dietary Fructose: Implications for Dysregulation of Energy > Homeostasis and > > Lipid/Carbohydrate Metabolism. > > Havel, J.. > > Nutrition Reviews, May2005, Vol. 63 Issue 5, p133, 25p > > > > Abstract: Fructose intake and the prevalence of obesity have both > increased over the > > past two to three decades. Compared with glucose, the hepatic > metabolism of fructose > > favors lipogenesis, which may contribute to hyperlipidemia and > obesity. Fructose > > does not increase insulin and leptin or suppress ghrelin, which > suggests an > > endocrine mechanism by which it induces a positive energy balance. > This review > > examines the available data on the effects of dietary fructose on > energy homeostasis > > and lipid/carbohydrate metabolism. Recent publications, studies in > human subjects, > > and areas in which additional research is needed are emphasized. > > > > ... SOURCES AND INTAKE OF DIETARY CARBOHYDRATE > > Dietary Carbohydrate Intake > > The National Academy of Sciences has recommended > > that between 45% and 65% of energy be derived from > > carbohydrates, 20% to 35% from fat, and 10% to 35% > > from protein, with no more than 25% of total energy > > from added sugars.5 Recommendations by the American > > Heart Association 6 and the American Diabetes Associa-tion > > 7 fall well within these broad guidelines: approxi-mately > > 50% of energy from carbohydrate, 30% from fat, > > and 20% from protein. There are two major, population-based > > methodological approaches for estimating energy > > and nutrient intakes. Food disappearance data reflect the > > nationwide availability of foods and thus tend to over-estimate > > consumption. In contrast, survey-based ap-proaches > > that rely primarily on the ability of respondents > > to recall categories and amounts of previous intake tend > > to underestimate consumption but have the advantage of > > estimating intake characteristics in distinct subsets of the > > population. Results from the US Department of Agricul-ture > > Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals > > (CSFII) suggest that from 1994 to 1996, non-vegetarians > > consumed 50% of energy from carbohydrate, 33% from > > fat, and 16% from protein, with 15% to 16% of energy > > provided by added sugars. Data from the National Health > > and Nutrition Survey (NHANES) as reported by the > > Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)8 > > indicate that carbohydrate intake increased by about 62 > > g/d in women and by about 69 g/d in men between 1971 > > and 2000. > > > > ... ACKNOWLEDGMENTS > > This work was supported by Academic Network, > > Portland, Oregon. Academic Network receives grant > > funding from the Sugar Association, the Salt Institute, > > and Dairy Management, Inc. ... Al Pater, PhD; email: old542000@... __________________________________ Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour: http://tour.mail./mailtour.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.