Rats do it, people do it... consume too much sugar, that is. Also, run through mazes.
Rats consuming a high fructose diet had impaired memory, based on their performance in a maze test. Adding omega 3 fatty acids back to their diet helped mitigate the fructose problem. However the rats with the best memory function were those who had no (minimal*) fructose and an adequate amount of omega 3s.
This summary leaves the impression that only two groups of rats were tested (high fructose with or without omega 3).
The paper makes it clear that two other groups with no fructose were also tested. The no fructose/deficient omega 3 group did worse on the memory tests than the no fructose/adequate omega 3 group, but not as badly as the high fructose/adequate omega 3 group. The high fructose/deficient omega 3 group brought up the rear, but no, that was not because they had become too obese to waddle thrugh the maze.
The takeaway (assuming this holds up in people, which it will) - Americans eat too much sugar, which contributes to obesity, diabetes, Alzheimers, and other mental deterioration. Fish oil supplementation can help; cutting way, way back on sugar can help more.
All of this is addressed in a new-ish book, "The Blood Sugar Solution" by Dr. Hyman.
And I had a post last February about the inevitable taxation and regulation of sugar. The increase in Western consumption over the last two centuries is astonishing, and apparently beyond our metabolism:
Author Robert Lustig is a YouTube hero for his long lecture on the evils of sugar. Gary Taubes described Dr. Lustig's thinking in a NY Times magazine article, "Is Sugar Toxic?". The gist of the gist - fructose, half of the common sucrose molecule, is metabolized differently from glucose, the normal constituent of other starchy foods. Our bodies just weren't designed to process the amounts of fructose people routinely consume these days, and the results are visible everywhere.
A bit of British history:
Britain's annual per capita consumption of sugar was 4lbs in 1704, 18lbs in 1800, 90lbs in 1901 - a 22-fold increase to the point where Britons had the highest sugar intake in Europe.
Here in the US we are up to about 150 lbs per person per year, up about 50% from 1950. Set against that is the Australian Paradox - since 1980 obesity Down Under has tripled while sugar consumption has fallen. Hmm... is anyone going to let a bit of science come between them and a new batch of regulations and taxes?
Treats used to be, well, a treat. Now its a breakfast bar. Also, a lunch bar and dessert after dinner. And a snack or two.
As to what is happening Down Under with sugar and obesity, I would love an explanation. A short summary of the original study is here; a rebuttal is here, and the vigorous dissent by Rory Robertson is continued here (Mr. Robertson is another "I dropped sugar and twenty pounds" guy; we are everwhere!). His gist - bad data led to a bad conclusion. Bonus gist - the 'Paradox' authors favor a low glycemic index approach. Since the glycemic index measures glucose in the bloodstream, fructose always scores well.
From the news account:
Professor Swinburn, who is the director of the World Health Organisation collaborating centre for obesity prevention at Deakin University, says the study's summary of the data as showing ''a consistent and substantial decline in total refined or added sugar by Australians over the past 30 years'' belies the facts ''and is a serious over-call in my opinion''.
His conclusion is that ''the ecological trends of sugar and obesity are pretty well matched and I do not believe there is any paradox to explain''.
MINIMAL FRUCTOSE: From the paper:
The two custom diets used were based on the composition of the American Institute of Nutrition diet and prepared commercially (Dyet s, Bethlehem, PA, USA) as previously described (Greiner et al. 2003). Both diets had the same basal macronutrients, vitamins, minerals and basal fats (hydrogenated coconut and safflower oils). For the casein source, vitamin-free casein Alacid 710 (NZMP North America Inc., CA, USA) was used. Dextrose, maltose-dextrin, cornstarch and sucrose were used as carbohydrate sources.
There will be fructose and glucose in the sucrose, so the "no fructose" diet is my misnomer.
And i thought it was trans-fats.....or was it corn syrup? Trans-fats mixed with corn syrup?
Posted by: matt | May 16, 2012 at 01:25 PM
Haven't had a Gary Taubes inspired thread in ages.
Posted by: peter | May 16, 2012 at 01:25 PM
It only seems like ages during the time you're reading it.
Posted by: Tom Maguire | May 16, 2012 at 01:29 PM
I initially read this as "Now Lugar Eats Your Brain". I've gotta start paying less attention to politics.
Posted by: Captain Hate | May 16, 2012 at 01:35 PM
Am I the only person who pronounces it FRUK-tose instead of FROOK-tose?
Posted by: Ignatz | May 16, 2012 at 01:45 PM
One of the first Lloyd Dobbins (?) reports on the news magazine show Weekend that I remember was about Scots' (specifically Scots - not Brits) sugar consumption. Don't remember the numbers. I do remember him reporting that a complete set of dentures was a common 21st birthday gift.
(The only other story I recall offhand was some annual gourmet meal thing that involved a bunch of old snobby guys sitting around a table with big cloths over their heads to 'catch the aromas' while they sucked the meat off the bones of some 3oz songbird. Gosh, I miss that show - news you can use, indeed.)
Posted by: AliceH | May 16, 2012 at 01:47 PM
the Tollybon and Pok-ee-stonis pronounce it
Farouk-tose.
Posted by: the first gay president | May 16, 2012 at 01:51 PM
I hope dublindave comes to this thread and puts down roots.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | May 16, 2012 at 02:01 PM
John Lovitz looks awkward...Megyn looks great!
John is obviously nervous, ha!...He's still a lib and realizing that he's sitting in the belly of the Conservative beast. (He doesn't realize yet that he has crossed the Rubicon---shhhh-he'll figure it out on his own:). He's explaining why he himself worked super hard to come up from nothing to where he is, and explaining why he said what he said about Obama lying and over taxation, etc.
Megyn ask, what do your lib friends think of what you said?
Lovitz says they are coming up to me and saying thanks for saying that.
Megyn sez the Left would say, 'the structure provided by the government gave you that opportunity to achieve what you've achieved so now you must give back for what was given to you.'
Lovitz say negative, nobody gave him anything.
Lovitz says he won't tell anyone who to vote for. He says backlash wise he has received about 10,000 messages on Twitter since the dust up and he has been called a Nazi, a Racist, etc.
Megyn finishes with a big smile on her face and sez "Thank you for for being here and thank you for not swearing", and suddenly Lovitz gets a huge smile on his face and starts laughing.
Nice segment. Excellent job Megyn. Welcome aboard John.
Posted by: daddy | May 16, 2012 at 02:02 PM
Tangential thought.
Whenever I read things that rely on consumption trends, I wonder whether the numbers are adjusted to account for 'wealth factors'. It seems to me, consumption numbers are mostly based on purchases. When one is poor, one is sure to consume 100% of what one purchases.
With increased wealth, not only can one justify buying a consumable more OFTEN, but a certain amount of product waste becomes acceptable, throwing out leftovers, etc, as convenience overtakes a need for tight budgeting.
Posted by: AliceH | May 16, 2012 at 02:08 PM
Americans eat too much sugar, which contributes to obesity, diabetes, Alzheimers, and other mental deterioration.
I'd still guess alcohol in the case of dudu, but this could help explain the utterances of the identity teenager.
Posted by: jimmyk | May 16, 2012 at 02:16 PM
Ignatz, 1.45. Re pronunciation. I'd never heard frook-tose until recently. Always before I'd heard and used fruk-tose --still do :).
Wish they'd quit finding so many things that are bad for us.
Posted by: Joan | May 16, 2012 at 02:35 PM
My mom has a sweet tooth. At 93 she's still mentally much much sharper than about 5 people posting on the Zimmerman threads.
Posted by: Clarice | May 16, 2012 at 03:03 PM
In Soviet Russia, sugar eat you!
Posted by: Porchlight | May 16, 2012 at 03:39 PM
At 93 she's still mentally much much sharper than about 5 people posting on the Zimmerman threads.
That's very funny.
Posted by: Jane | May 16, 2012 at 03:53 PM
The study just fed the rats sugar water, so all their calories came from fructose. What about a control using glucose? Is it possible the mice became hypoglycemic between meals, a common occurrence on high sugar diets. Put anyone or anything on a diet where 100% of the calories come from one nutrient and I would hypothesize performane problems will manifest.
Posted by: abad man | May 16, 2012 at 04:00 PM
Yeah but Clarice my Bison Friese is also mentally sharper than those 5! Not bragging rights for your MOM, cuz if those 5 combined brain power were gunpowder, the firecracker would never go off!
Posted by: GMAX | May 16, 2012 at 04:02 PM
"Bison Friese"? I have this image of a REALLY hyper buffalo, and it's terrifying.
Posted by: Rob Crawford | May 16, 2012 at 04:06 PM
Its French Rob. Pronounced BEEE SHON and 9 pounds of white fur thunder!
Posted by: GMAX | May 16, 2012 at 04:09 PM
Oh, that's better.
Posted by: Rob Crawford | May 16, 2012 at 04:14 PM
My m-i-l has alzheimers. And lived with a coke in her hand for years and years. Might be something to it. And then again, it might be something else entirely. Who knows...
I just heard the RFK Jr's estranged wife was found dead. I think it said she was 52. What is it with Kennedys and death?
Posted by: Sue | May 16, 2012 at 04:53 PM
Were the fructose eating rats watching TV? Was it MSNBC or CNN what done them in?
Posted by: Clarice | May 16, 2012 at 04:55 PM
Next let's put rats on a 100% spinach and wheat bran diet and see what it does to their brains---that is if you can get them out of the john to give them IQ tests..
Posted by: Clarice | May 16, 2012 at 04:58 PM
For Janet.
Sometime when I was in the 3rd grade or so, I came across a Weekly Reader article about a scientific study "proving" the dangers cancer from smoking. I wouldn't remember the details, except that when I showed it to my mom (who smokes), she felt compelled to reassure me, promising that she would never ever ever boil 4 cartons of cigarettes into a quarter cup of sticky tar and then paint it on open wound behinds her ears twice a day for 4 months.
Phew!
Posted by: AliceH | May 16, 2012 at 05:16 PM
Thanks, AliceH.
The secondhand smoke PSA's are on every night now. I wonder if scented candles or those scented oil plug-ins could kill the kid in the next apartment? Have we studied that? How bout frying a lot of greasy food? Does the oil go through the vent system & kill the neighbor's Bison Friese?
Posted by: Janet | May 16, 2012 at 05:38 PM
Ted Kennedy was a RAT, look what SCOTCH did to him!!
HE'S DEAD!!!
Posted by: Gus | May 16, 2012 at 05:42 PM
I miss the ability to just be considerate about (not) smoking when non-smokers are around in the same area. Now, though I exhibit exactly the same behavior, it's not my choice. I don't buy the SHS health hazard, but I do understand objections to the smell of cig smoke.
I did try once to use that argument to also ban microwave popcorn and hairspray/perfume/cologne from the office. You can guess the result.
Posted by: AliceH | May 16, 2012 at 05:58 PM
Well, AliceH...just light up some medical marijuana & it's all good.
Posted by: Janet | May 16, 2012 at 06:31 PM
I love the smell of fresh smoke. I don't like the stale smell, but no one does I suspect.
Posted by: Jane | May 16, 2012 at 06:52 PM
Bichon Frise, guys and gals. Sorry, but French was my main foreign language.
Posted by: Mark Folkestad | May 16, 2012 at 07:18 PM
no, the Bichon Frise is more endangered by Barack Obama's White House chef.
Posted by: matt | May 16, 2012 at 08:03 PM
"Am I the only person who pronounces it FRUK-tose instead of FROOK-tose?"
No, Joan also says it that way. :)
Posted by: Jim,MtnView,Ca,USA | May 16, 2012 at 11:45 PM