.

.
marylin monroe
Showing posts with label sugar. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sugar. Show all posts

22g High EAA (6g) Protein + 36g CHO Pre- / Intra-Workout Boost Fat Oxidation & PWO Resting(!) Energy Expenditure

I don't doubt that you can do that, too!
It does sound awkward: If you mix Twinlab: Amino Fuel (22 g protein - 6 g essential amino acids | L-phenylalanine: 633 mg; Lvaline: 781 mg; L-tryptophan: 133 mg; L-threonine: 679 mg; L-isoleucine: 565 mg; L-methionine: 292 mg, L-histidine: 282 mg; L-leucine: 1350 mg; L-lysine: 1449 mg) with a regular  sports recovery drink that contains 36g of simple sugar, down half of the resulting 800ml serving of whatever you want to call this mix immediately before your workout and consume the rest during the rest periods between sets, this will have measurable effects on your resting energy expenditure and fat oxidation.

From long-term to short time effects

At first, it does questionably sound counter-intuitive that the ingestion of an EAA + carbohydrate mixture before / during would increase the resting energy expenditure and rate of fatty acid oxidation after your workout. On the other hand, if you think about the long-term effects of corresponding supplement regimen, you don't have to look far, to find evidence that they can promote both, muscle gain and fat loss (Bird. 2006).
You can learn more about protein intake at the SuppVersity

Are You Protein Wheysting?

Cod protein for recovery

Protein requ. of athletes

High EAA protein for fat loss

Fast vs. slow protein

Too much ado about protein?
Kyle J. Hackney, Andrew R. Kelleher, and Lori L. Ploutz-Snyder from the Syracuse University speculated that the highly beneficial changes in body composition Bird et al. observed in their study participants over the course of a 12-week strength training + EAA & CHO supplementation that after "[t]hese adaptations may be related to the acute energy expenditure and substrate utilization responses in the postexercise period." (Hackney. 2013)
Figure 1: The changes in body composition (in kg) in response to 12 weeks of resistance training + placebo, CHO, EAA or CHO + EAA supplementation in 2006 study by Bird et al. "inspired" Hackney et al.
Against that background, it was only logical to conduct a study to examine how multiple bouts of resistance exercise with and without the strategically timed intake of amino acids affect the resting energy expenditure (REE) and respiratory exchange ratio (RER). The results could after all explain if the long/er) term effects on body composition that have been observed in previous studies using chronic training and supplementation regimen are maybe nothing but necessary consequences of repeated acute increases in REE or decreases in RER (you hopefully remember that a decrease in the respiratory exchange ratio signifies an increase in fatty acid oxidation).

Experimental design and results

To this ends, the researchers recruited 10 young (mean age: 23.4y) recreationally trained male participants. All of them had been participating in general resistance training exercise for a minimum of 3 days per week for at least 6 months.
Figure 2: Changes in resting energy expenditure (kcal/day) and comparison of training volume in 58g CHO (black bars) and EAA + CHO (white bars) trials (Hackney. 2013).
As you can see in Figure 2, Hackney et al.'s original hypothesis that "intake of amino acids with each resistance exercise session would lead to greater perturbations of REE and RER" (Hackney. 2013) does unquestionably hold for this population of average (rookie) gymrats.

Whether the scientists "main finding" (Hackney. 2013), i.e. the 3.61% increase in resting energy expenditure (REE) will be similarly pronounced in advanced trainees is yet as questionable as the real-world effects of this artificial value. Despite the fact that Hackney et al. are right, when they say that our resting energy expenditure "represents the largest component of [our] total daily energy expenditure (60–85%) and has been implicated as a major contributor to overall body mass management " (Hackney. 2013), I am not sure how "major" an increase of only 66kcal per day actually is... I mean,  if this pathetic increase in resting energy expenditure was the actual driving force we would need almost 100 days to shed a hilarious pound of body fat (note: the reason I use the flawed 3,500kcal = 1lbs of fat rule of thumb here is that the whole REE calculations would be pointless if you didn't put at least some faith into the "energy in vs. energy out" hypothesis of weight loss - right?)
SuppVersity Suggested Read: "Fat Loss Principles That Work: 10g+ of EAAs W/ Every Meal. Do Energetic Costs of Protein Synthesis Trigger This Effect?" |  read more
Bottom line: It stands out of question that your training success can benefit from a high EAA protein source and some carbs you consume before and during the exercise session. Whether the fat loss benefits are actually brought about by the marginally increased resting energy expenditure (REE) is yet something I doubt - it certainly helps fat loss, but clearly isn't its main motor.

Don't get me wrong, this does not imply that you will benefit from this type of "peri-workout" supplementation. And let's be honest, the end most of you probably don't care about the exact underlying mechanisms, as long as your body composition keeps improving, right?
References:
  • Bird, S. P., Tarpenning, K. M., & Marino, F. E. (2006). Independent and combined effects of liquid carbohydrate/essential amino acid ingestion on hormonal and muscular adaptations following resistance training in untrained men. European journal of applied physiology, 97(2), 225-238.
  • Hackney, K. J., Kelleher, A. R., & Ploutz-Snyder, L. L. (2013). Amino Acid-Carbohydrate Intake Combined with Multiple Bouts of Resistance Exercise Increases Resting Energy Expenditure. ISRN Nutrition, 2013.

Santa is Coming to Town and You Better Beware of His Gifts: Fat Gain, Muscle Loss and Increased Mortality Rates.

Image 1: The "modern" image of the Coke-drinking Santa. Do you really believe he is one of the good guys?
Finally, December 24th is there! The day we have all been waiting for, to get together with friends and relatives and wait for the portly, joyous, white-bearded man in the red coat to deliver "his" gifts. Interestingly enough, the word "gift" in German designates "poison" and while those of you who have been following the SuppVersity news earlier this week may now be speculating that this could in one way or another be related to the millions of iPhones Santa is going to be dropping down the chimneys in the night to come (cf. Mobile Contraception), it seems unlikely that the electromagnetic radiation from the gadgetry could explain the statistically significant +4.65% increase in cardiac and a + 4.99% increase in non-cardiac deaths during the holiday season. After all, the data based on which David P. Phillips, Jason R. Jarvinen, Ian S. Abramson, and Rosalie R. Phillips conclude that "the Christmas/New Year’s holidays are a risk factor for cardiac and noncardiac mortality" is from the pre-iPhone era (Phillips. 2004).

Is Santa not the good guy, the Coca Cola ads made us believe?

So, if its not the radiation, what else could it be? Could it be Santa Claus himself? Is he haunting us, just as his robotic counterfeit in the distant future of the year 2999, where an evil Santa robot is after the blood of the protagonists of Matt Groening's and David X. Cohens TV series Futurama? Or is it a result of the consumption of too many of the Coca Cola bottles Santa is supposed to have in his bag?
Image 2: One really has to marvel at how the soft drink producers dissolve the enormous amount of sugar on the right in the small amount of dark brew on the left.
Did you know that the Coca Cola company alone sells 1.6billion (!) servings of Coke per day? With 27g of sugar per serving, this equals 43,000 metric tons of pure sugar. The average American, who consumes an average of 150 to 170 pounds of sugar each year, would have to live into his/her 558th year of age to eat or drink her way through this sugar mountain. And while I have no doubt that there actually are people out there who would do that withing 100 years, I am not quite sure which of the ailments of our sweet convenience society would strike him / her first and put a spoke in the sweet-o-holic's plans: diabetes, cancer, heart failure or stroke? What would you say?
Phillipps et al. who report in a follow-up study based on the same dataset from the holiday periods between July 1, 1973, and June 30, 2001 that there was an "excess of 42,325 deaths from natural causes above and beyond the normal winter increase" (Phillips. 2010), exclude the possibility that the increased mortality rate was simply a result of the bad weather conditions and related respiratory diseases:
Respiratory diseases. Respiratory diseases increase during winter, and patients weakened by respiratory diseases can die from cardiac diseases. The respiratory hypothesis is undermined by 2 considerations: (1) People dying from cardiac diseases with respiratory disease listed as a secondary cause of death produce a smaller holiday peak than do people dying from cardiac diseases alone: 3.51% versus 3.77%. (2) Interaction between cardiac and respiratory diseases cannot easily explain the twin mortality spikes on Christmas and New Year’s.
So, in view of the latest headlines related to "holiday weight gain" here at the SuppVersity and elsewhere on the web, the next best plausible explanation (which would in fact come back to the "Coca Cola < > Santa Connection" ;-) would be gluttony, right?

Holiday weight gain: Distinguishing fact from fiction

Before we jump to any premature conclusions, here, let's initially have a closer look at how much body weight Santa actually has in his bag for you.I mean, the perceived weight gain is enormous, right? Well, science is however not about perceptions and feelings and it should thusly not really surprise you that, according to a US study which was published in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine (Yanowski. 2000), the "average" American (in this study represented by 195 US adults with a mean age of 39 +/-12 years) gains no more than 0.37kg, or, expressed in terms of the mean weight of the study participants, 0.5% during the holiday period from from mid-November to early or mid-January.
Figure 1: Percentage of normal weight, overweight and obese subjects with "major weight gain", as defined in absolute or relative terms (data adapted from Yanowski. 2000)
And while the average weight gain hardly is something to speak of, there are two other particularly intriguing findings of this study I do want to draw your attention to. The first one relates to the the data in figure 1. As you can see, the number of overweight subjects among those study participants with major weight gain (as defined as >3% of the initial weight) is particularly high. While only 7.9% of the normal-weight (American normal weight ;-) subjects gained more than 3% of their initial body weight 11.1% of the already overweight subjects did. Interestingly, the number of obese subjects was slightly smaller (7.5%). The latter is yet a physical necessity as there simply is a phyiscal limit to the amount of weight you can gain in a given period of time and 3% for a person with BMI>30 is obviously way more than 3% for someone who is only "overweight" (25 < BMI < 30).

The real problem is: The weight does not magically disappear

The real culprit is however that the weight people gain during last weeks of the year "is not reversed during
the spring and summer months", so that he researchers' concern that
[t]he 0.48-kg weight gain of the subjects in this study between September or October and February or March might not appear to be  clinically important and could easily go unnoticed by both the subjects and health care providers [and that] the cumulative effects of yearly weight gain during the fall and winter are likely to contribute to the substantial increase in body weight that frequently occurs during adulthood.
A 2006 by Hull may not only provide a hypothetical explanation for the non-reversibility of the (minor) weight gain (Hull. 2006), it also provides some insights into the true fallacy of "holiday weight gain": The minor increase in total body weight goes at the expense of concomittant increases in body fat and reductions in lean tissue mass.
Figure 2: Relative changes in anthroprometric measures over the holiday season; left axis - overweight / normal weight, right axis + figures - all (data adapted from Hull. 2006)
In the 82 college students from the Hull study, this fat promoting, muscle reducing "recompositioning" effect of the holiday season (Thanksgiving to New Year) was even so pronounced that the study participants actually lost -0.1kg of their total body weight. This was unfortunately a direct result of a +0.8 increase in fat mass and a -0.4kg decrease in lean mass. And what's more, the effect on fat mass was again more pronounced in those subjects, who were already obese.

Beyond candy, coke & co: Five additional reasons why Christmas is potentially deadly

In spite of the fact that these highly unfavorable changes in body composition are certainly not beneficial for anyone's overall health, it stands out of question that their effects would be cumulative and can thusly hardly explain the empirically validated increased mortality risk during the holiday season. In a 2004 comment on the aforementioned paper by Phillips et. al., Robert A. Kloner thusly proposes five additional hypotheses which could explain the potentially fatal side effects of the holiday season (Kloner. 2004):
    Image 3: If you do not want to be treated by "beginners" and unexperienced hospital personnel you'd better not get sick over the holidays; and in case you do, please make sure to "postpone your death" in order not to ruin everyone's holidays ;-)
  1. Inappropriate delay in seeking medical attention - best way out: don't wait until all the presents have been wrapped out, when aunt Mary chokes over her food
  2. Reduced levels of healthcare staffing or fewer staff members who are familiar with individual patients during holiday on-call schedules - best way out: better avoid getting sick in the first place if you do not want to be treated by the SCRUBS staff
  3. Increased emotional stress - just ignore your nephew when he starts crying because he did not get the Nintendo Wii he wrote on his wish list
  4. Decreased our of daylight - make sure to get as much of the little light there is during prolonged walks with the whole family (may also help cool down any raised tempers ;-)
  5. "Postponement of death" - tell your 127 year old uncle that he has been waiting so long now that it would be very inappropriate to die now and ruin everyones' Christmas celebrations
Well, I guess, now that you know about all the terrible things that could happen and the best ways to avoid them, it is about time to wish you, your family, friends and loved ones a happy (death-free) holiday season! And in case you need a break from the festivities, there is no Christmas break, here it at the SuppVersity ;-)

Fructose-Nation: No Change in Fructose Availability in the US Since the Early 1970s. So Why Are We Fat, Then?

From fat to Fructose - just another scapegoat for a fundamental problem?
Over the past 5 years or so, the idea that that fructose is to blame for the ever-increasing rates of diabesity has become so popular that hypotheses such as "the fructose consumption has exploded over the past decade" are usually accepted as scientifically verified facts.

A recent paper from the Department of Nutrition and Health Sciences at the University of Nebraska did now remind me that not all things that appear logical and consistent with our believes are necessarily true.

Do we even consume that much fructose?

As Trevor J Carden and Timothy P Carr point out, "the consumption pattern of fructose and other key nutrients" in the past 4 decades, "remains a topic of debate" (Carden. 2013). To determine whether fructose consumption in the US has increased sufficiently to be a casual factor in the rise in obesity prevalence Carden and Carr analyzed the USDA Loss-Adjusted Food Availability Database.
The researchers found that the food availability of glucose and fat, but not fructose, increased in the US between 1970 and 2009.
To calculate the percent change in energy from food groups and individual nutrients, Carden and Carr started initially compiled the available data on the per capita loss-adjusted food availability for 132 individual items were. In a second step they analyzed the corresponding nutrient profiles and used their findings to determine the availability of energy as well as macronutrients and monosaccharides during the years 1970-2009. By comparing the values for a given year to the baselinen in 1970, they did eventually determine the percent change in energy from food groups and individual nutrients.
Figure 1: Change in food energy availability per capita, 1970-2009 (Carden. 2013)
If you take a glance at the data in Figure 1 it's easy to see that their findings indicate that during this 40 year period the total energy availability increased by +10.7%. In that, the main "offenders" were grains and oils, the net change in total fructose availability, on the other hand was 0% - in other words, the added sweeteners (1%) were not even fructose based. Furthermore, Carden and Carr observed that the ...
"[e]nergy available from total glucose (from all digestible food sources) increased 13.0% [and ended up being] more than 3-times greater than fructose." (Carden. 2013)
With 14.6%, the amount of fat increased to a very similar extend as that of glucose. That's a 3x higher increase than for protein (+4.7) and am 1.6x higher increase in energy availability than for carbohydrates ,in general (+9.8).

So, it's the fat and sugar that's to blame? Not the fructose?

Despite the fact that I am not particular fond of the "fructose theory of everything evil", I believe that we got to be cautious about the significance of Trevor J Garden's and Timothy P Carr's conclusion, that their data would "suggest" that fructose is "unlikely to have been a unique causal factor in the increased obesity prevalence". If you take a look at the supplemental data they provided you will find, that their list of 132 foods used to calculate USDA food availability, i.e.
  • Head Lettuce
  • Kale
  • Lima Beans
  • Whole flavored milk
  • Buttermilk
  • Lowfat flavored milk
  • Plain 1-percent milk
  • Plain 2-percent milk
  • Skim milk
  • Eggnog and Half and Half (dairy and fat share of)
  • Sour cream
  • Yogurt
  • Cheeses
  • Lowfat cottage cheese
  • Reg. cottage cheese
  • Frozen yogurt and other misc
  • Ice cream
  • Lowfat ice cream
  • Condensed bulk and canned skim milk
  • Condensed bulk whole milk
  • Condensed canned whole milk
  • Dry buttermilk
  • Dry whole milk
  • Nonfat dry milk
  • Barley products
  • Corn flour and meal
  • Corn hominy and grits
  • Corn starch
  • Durum flour
  • Oat products
  • Rice
  • Rye flour
  • White and whole wheat flour
  • Beef
  • Lamb
  • Pork
  • Veal
  • Chicken
  • Turkey
  • Fish and Shellfish
  • Eggs
  • Great N. Beans
  • Butter
  • Edible beef tallow
  • Lard
  • Margarine
  • Other edible fats and oils
  • Salad and cooking oils
  • Shortening
  • Beer
  • Wine
  • Distilled Spirits
  • Garlic
  • Frozen Veggies
  • Mushrooms
  • Mustard Greens
  • Navy Beans
  • Okra
  • Onions
  • Canned Veggies
  • Other Dry Beans
  • Peas and Lentils
  • Pinto Beans
  • Potatoes
  • Pumpkin
  • Radishes
  • Red Kidney Beans
  • Lettuce
  • Snap Beans
  • Spinach
  • Squash
  • Sweet Corn
  • Sweet Potatoes
  • Tomatoes
  • Turnip Greens
  • Peanuts
  • Tree Nuts
  • Coconuts
  • Refined sugar
  • Dextrose
  • Glucose
  • HFCS
  • Edible syrups
  • Honey
  • Plain whole milk
  • Green Peas
  • Collard Greens
  • Avacado
  • Bananas
  • Blackberries
  • Blueberries
  • Canteloup
  • Cherries
  • Cranberries
  • Dates
  • Figs
  • Grapefruit
  • Grapes
  • Honeydew
  • Kiwifruit
  • Lemons
  • Limes
  • Mangos
  • Olives
  • Oranges
  • Frozen Berries
  • Papayas
  • Peaches
  • Pears
  • Pineapple
  • Plums and Prunes
  • Raisins
  • Raspberries
  • Stawberries
  • Tangerines
  • Watermelon
  • Artichokes
  • Asparagus
  • Bell Peppers
  • Black Beans
  • Broccoli
  • Brussel Sprouts
  • Cabbage
  • Carrots
  • Cauliflower
  • Celery
  • Cucumbers
  • Eggplant
  • Apples
  • Apricots
  • Chili Peppers
  • Escarole & Endive
... is representative of the variety of foods US citizens eat, but it does not tell you which of these foods, they will eventually select. Let's take apples, coconuts, and white and whole wheat flour as an example triplet. I guess if you had to rank them according to their contribution to the total energy intake of the average US citizen, none of you would hesitate to give me an answer like this: "White and whole wheat flour > apples > coconuts". Without the corresponding "weights" that would tell the scientists that white and whole wheat flour has a 10x higher impact on the average macronutrient composition of the average American diet, we be talking about the nutrient and fructose availability, not the actual intakes.

Better treat the data with the appropriate caution

Unfortunately, the scientists provide only rudimentary information about the impact of food choices, i.e. how much of the items listed above, the average US citizen actually consumes, namely:
  • The food categories that increased the most during this time were grains and fats/oils, having increased 24.2% and 25.3%, respectively. 
  • Caloric sweeteners (including both sucrose and HFCS) increased a modest 1.3%. 
With respect to the sweeteners Carden and Carr emphasize that the "sugar" availability, or as they put it the "monosaccharides available for metabolic absorption" is more than 3x higher than that of fructose.
In other words: Despite the fact that fructose appears to have become ubiquitous, overeating on plain sugar is still 3x easier. That this does not imply that you cannot do so, is the main and in my humble opinion crucial problem Carden and Carr fail to address. The result of their study do after all not exclude that a significant parts of the US population increased their fructose intake, in spit of the fact that its availability remained essentially the same.
The availability of a given nutrient on the shelves of US supermarket may provide a realistic image of the diets of a society of identical clones, who wheel their carts back and forth through the whole supermarket and buy foods from all each and every shelf. The "real" American, however, is no clone. On the contrary! He has his preferences and for a large part of the society these preferences can be found in the "highly processed, high sugar, high fat"-shelves of the super market. He does not care about the coconuts, apples, kale, mushrooms, olives and all the other foods in the "whole foods" section of the supermarket. They are available, but not what he is looking for.
Figure 2: The increase in total energy intake is one of the most fundamental contributers to the obesity epidemic (adapted from Carden. 2013)
Bottom Line: Despte the disconnect between availability and consumption you will be hard pressed to debate the scientists' conclusion that "increased total energy intake, due to increased availability of foods providing glucose (primarily as starch in grains) and fat" are the major contributors to the increased obesity in the US.

What is annoying, though, is the fact that a vast majority of the researchers fails to realize that their studies already account for the obesogenic effects of nutrient density. The average "high fat diets are bad for ..." is after all based on experiments, where animals or humans are fed diets that are high in both fat and carbohydrates.

Despite the fact that these studies provide a realistic portrayal of the average Western diet, the messages people infer, when they read about these results in the mainstream media is flawed.

It's not about eating less, fat, fructose, sugar or whatever scapegoat the author of the corresponding article believes was to blame for our misery. It's about nothing else than turning our whole way of eating upside down. It's about the right foods, not the right macros and it's about moderation and mindfulness.
References:
  • Carden, T. J., & Carr, T. P. (2013). Food availability of glucose and fat, but not fructose, increased in the US between 1970 and 2009: analysis of the USDA food availability data system. Nutrition journal, 12(1), 130.

Sugar Sweetened Beverages & Total Energy Intake: Studies Suggest That Normal-, Overweight & Obese Women CAN Compensate for 168 Additional Sugar Calories Per Day

Usually they are touted as the reason for weight gain: Sugar-containing soft drinks like the Scottish brew Irn Bru. In the study at hand, however, they helped 41 obese women lose weight - how come?
Despite the fact that it is not the first of it's kind, I decided that the paper Roy Nelson sent me the a couple of days ago may still be worth being covered in a brief article. Marie Reid and her colleagues were after all able to show that we can, theoretically and without conscious effort, compensate for the additional energy intake from sugar-sweetened beverages.

As I already mentioned, this is not the first study Reid and her colleagues from the Hull, Ulster and Herriot-Watt Universities in the UK conducted, but it is the first one where the subjects, obese women, with previous diet experience, came right from the subgroup of the population of whom we simply assume that their weight problems would (partly) result from these "empty calories".

Would the women "recognize" the 168kcal of pure sugar in their diets?

After exclusion and dropouts, Marie Reid et al. were left with a total of 41 healthy obese (BMI 30– 35 kg/m²) 20-50 year-old women who were randomly assigned to consume sucrose (n=20) or aspartame (n=21) drinks over 4 weeks in a parallel single-blind design.

Based on the previously mentioned experiments with normal- and overweight women, the researchers knew women with higher body weights had a harder time to compensate for the 168kcal the sugar-sweetened drinks delivered than their lean peers. It was thus interesting to see, whether the obese women (1) would compensate for the additional energy intake and (2) whether the compensation would be less pronounced than in the lean and overweight participants of the previous studies.
What's missing from the study at hand are the really important things, i.e. the changes in blood glucose and lipid metabolism and the differences in waist circumference and / or body fat levels. So whatever the scale of the subjects said, this and the previous studies by Reid et al. don't provide the basis for an acquittal of sugar sweetened beverages (learn more about the debate the role of Pepsi, Coke & Co in the diabesity epidemic).
Instead of simply having their subjects fill dietary records, the scientists used the weight response to judge, whether or not the women fully or partly compensated for the additional energy intake from the sugar sweetened beverages (note: the beverages contained regular sugar, no HFCS). Reid et al. did yet also analyze the changes in macronutrient composition to elucidate, whether the expected reduction in regular (food) energy intake would go at the expense of any particular macronutrient, i.e. carbs, proteins or fats.
Figure 1: Macronutrient and energy intake of the sugar (left) and aspartame (right) group (Reid. 2013)
The test drinks the scientists used came in 250 ml bottles. The women were instructed to consume four of these bottler, the content of which was sweetened with plain sucrose (fructose + glucose) or aspartame. Of the latter, the commercially available soft drinks (Irn Bru) contained
  • 10.5g of sucrose, but no aspartame in the regular and (sugar)
  • 0g of sucrose and a miniscule amount of aspartame in the diet variety (aspartame)
If you  do the math you can easily calculate that the regular Irn Bru provided an additional energy intake of 4x10.5g/day x 4kcal/g = 168kcal/day and a total of 4704kcal if we take the whole 4-week study period. According to the faulty rule of thumb that informs us that 1lbs of fat would equal 3,500kcal (learn why this is *bs*), the women in the "regular" Irn Bru group (sugar) should end up with "exactly" (*rofl*) 672g of additional fat on their hips.

Sugar doesn't make you fat and artificial sweeteners seem to hamper weight loss!?

I guess (or hope) that you will not really have expected to see those 672 extra grams of fat on the hips of Reid's, subjects at the end of the study. Still, most of you will probably have expected that the ladies did gain weight, right? Much to my own surprise, this was not the case: In fact, the vast majority of the ladies missed the predicted weight gain by more than 1kg (1.72 (SD 0.47) kg).
Figure 2: Illustration of the results of the study at hand (obese women) and previous studies with normal- and overweight women all of which showed sufficient energy compensation for the 4x250ml soft drinks  (Reid. 2007, 2010, 2013); note the listed "weight loss", e.g. -1.72kg, denotes the difference between the actual and the predicted body weight, see red box!
Now, being part of a study like this certainly is a confounding factor that could precipitate to conscious energy restriction. If this was the reason the ladies didn't gain weight, though, the women in the aspartame group would actually have had to lose a significant amount of weight.
It's not like the lean or overweight  women did not gain any weight at all.
This is not "sugar induced weight loss"! If you look at the graphs from the previous studies (left) in which Reid et al. did not use the "compared to expected weight gain" trick, it's obvious that only the lean women got away without weight gain.  In the overweight and obese women, there was a small, but due to the large outliers statistically non-significant increase in body weight.
I mean, you would certainly expect the women in the placebo group to take the same measure to make sure the potentially sugary (remember this is a randomized, blinded study) brew they were drinking would not end up on their hips.

A brief glance at the total energy intake in Figure 1 appears to confirm that: The women in the aspartame group did also reduce their energy intake. Due to significant differences among the study participants this did however not lead to a net change in body weight. From a statistical perspective, this means that the body weight of "Mrs. Average" did not change - neither in response to the sugar- nor in the aspartame sweetened drinks. 
Wtf? Sugar does not make you fat!? There are a couple of good reasons we got to be cautious with generalizing assessments like "sugary drinks are not the problem!":
  1. In contrast to the study Sartor et al. found that their participants gained 1kg of fat in only four weeks "on" Lucozade energy drinks | more
    Neither this study nor the previous studies measured the health-relevant changes in body composition of which the 2012 study by Sartor et al. clearly shows that they will occur if you simply add a bunch of sugary energy drinks to your diet (learn more).
  2. With its 100% plain sugar content, the beverage the scientists used is not representative of the "average" soda. It is thus unwarranted to conclude that the lean, overweight and, in the study at hand, obese subjects would also be able to compensate for beverages with HFCS, dextrose or whatever other funky caloric sweeteners the industry uses.
Even if (2) was not true and similar compensatory effects wouldn't be observed with sweeteners, the data from the study at hand clearly weakens the "empty calories" argument. It does so, however, without being the first class acquittal Sugar Nutrition UK was probably hoping for when they decided to provide the financial means for this study.
References
  • Reid M, Hammersley R, Hill AJ, Skidmore P. Long-term dietary compensation for added sugar: effects of supplementary sucrose drinks over a 4-week period. Br J Nutr. 2007 Jan;97(1):193-203.
  • Reid M, Hammersley R, Duffy M. Effects of sucrose drinks on macronutrient intake, body weight, and mood state in overweight women over 4 weeks. Appetite. 2010 Aug;55(1):130-6.
  • Reid M, Hammersley R, Duffy M, Ballantyne C. Effects on obese women of the sugar sucrose added to the diet over 28 d: a quasi-randomised, single-blind, controlled trial. Br J Nutr. 2013 Oct 29:1-8. [Epub ahead of print]

Stevia - So Much More Than Just a Natural Sweetener: Combination "Therapy" With Stevia and Fenugreek as Effective as Common Diabetes Drug!

Image 1: Nature vs. Pharma. Leavs and seeds vs. chemicals - guess who will win!
I have been wondering for quite some time now, why I, as a resident of the European Union, do still have to use my hair-care products to sweeten my tea, my yogurt, or whatever else, if I do want to avoid artificial sweeteners or the good, or I should say, "bad" old table sugar... for those of you who are now wondering how hair-care products relate to my sweet tooth - here in Europe, Stevia rebaudiana Bertoni has still not been approved as a food additive, so that the myriad of health-food shops carrying respective products simply relabel them as "hair-care" or "cosmetic products, not intended for internal application"... and as a obedient citizen I would, of course, never even remotely consider ingesting a product such as stevia that is so utterly natural and genetically unmodified that it must be harmful ;-)

A pros pos harmful: As it turns out, stevia could in fact be pretty harmful - yet not for my or your physiological health, but certainly for the financial health of the big pharma companies. After all, scientists from the Departments of Pharmacology at the Bangladesh Agricultural University and the Faculty of Medicine at the Kagawa University in Japan have recently been able to show that Stevia rebaudiana Bertoni, in combination with Fenugreek aka Methi (Trigonella foenum-graecum), exhibits similarly potent hypoglycemic effects in Streptozotocin treated rats (the reference model for type II diabetes) as Amaryl(R), a commonly used diabetes drug based on the active ingredient Glimepiride (Rafiq. 2011). It thusly stands to reason that big pharma has a vested interest in delaying or even preventing the admission of stevia as an allowable food additive. Think about it: Who would buy all the Amaryls, Metformins & Co if Coca Cola decided to put stevia instead of aspartame into their soft-drinks and - all of a sudden - all those pre-diabetic soft-drink junkies would not develop full-blown type II diabetes, anymore? Ah... I am digressing again. Let's get back to the facts.

For their study Kazi Rafiq and his (I hope that "Kazi" is a male first name ;-) colleagues had collected fresh stevia and methi (=fenugreek) leaves and seeds and prepared them according to the following procedure:
Fresh Stevia leaves that were collected from the garden were oven dried first and then dried leaves were grinded with Grinder machine. Then 1g dried leaves samples were mixed with 10ml distilled water and were allowed to stay for whole night. Everyday fresh extract were prepared by using these techniques. Water extract of methi was made from 100g fresh seed sample by grinding with Grinder machine, and mixed with 2000 ml distilled water. Then the water extract was lyophilized in Central Laboratory, BAU. Finally the herbal drug was collected as powder form by Freeze drying in Central Laboratory, BAU.
The scientists then injected their 30 of their 36 Long Evans rats with Streptozotocin (STZ) to induce insulin resistance (again, STZ-treaded rodents are the most commonly used model of type II diabetes). After two weeks of STZ injection the (then) diabetic rats were divided into 5 groups:
  • Group-B: diabetic control (STZ).
  • Group-C: STZ + aqueous extract of stevia leaves @ 100 mg/kg,
  • Group-D: STZ + aqueous extract of methi leaves @ 500 mg/kg,
  • Group-E: STZ + combination of aqueous extract of stevia and methi leaves @ 500 mg/kg
  • Group-F: Amaryl @ 800µg/kg
The plant extracts and the drug were administered orally once daily for 60 days. Blood glucose levels were monitored during the treatment period and an oral glucose tolerance test was conducted at the end of the 60-day experiment (results cf. figure 1).
Figure 1: Blood glucose levels (in mg/dl) in response to oral glucose tolerance test in normal and diabetic (STZ) rats after 6 weeks on a combination of stevia and fengreek extracts or the anti-diabetes drug Amaryl - left; change in area under the respective curve (AUC) relative to normal control - right (data adapted from Rafiq. 2011)
As you can see Amaryl and the combination therapy with stevia and fenugreek extracts at 500mg/kg per day (equivalent to 81mg/kg for a human being; or ~6.5g of each for someone weighing about 80kg) were equally effective in ameliorating the blood glucose response (within the statistical margin the AUC was identical).
Figure 2: Elevations in blood sugar levels (compared to healthy control) after STZ treatment and consecutive administration of stevia, fenugreek, a combination of both or Amaryl (data calculated based on Rafiq. 2011)
Moreover, the combination of stevia and fenugreek ameliorated the negative effect the Streptozotocin treatment had on blood glucose concentrations to a similar extend as Amaryl (cf. figure 2), which led the scientists to conclude that...
these findingslend pharmacological support to the suggested folkloric and ethnomedical user of these plants in managing and /or controlling of diabetes mellitus in rural communities of Bangladesh.
While the use of small amounts of stevia to sweeten your beverages and / or food will probably not have the same profound effects on your blood glucose levels as the combination of what would amount to a ~6g equivalent of leaf and seed extracts from stevia and fenugreek used in this study, I would assume that those dubious"hair-care products" still constitutes the most healthy sugar-alternative on the European market - so do your pancreas, ahh.. I mean hair, a favor and get yourself some stevia ;-)

Sweet, But Not Innocent!? The Fattening Effects of the Non - Nutritive Sweeteners Erythritol & Aspartame Are On Par With Equally Sweet Sugar Water

I just hope that today's SuppVersity article is not going to cause scenes like this, because when it all said and done it may be less likely, but not impossible that it is (for whatever vexed reason) still aspartame that caused the negative effects observed in the study at hand.
It is one of the recurring motifs here at the SuppVersisty and at the same time one of the most popular issues of dispute in the health and fitness community: The Obesogenic Effects of Artificial Sweeteners. Or, in plain English, the question  

"Can I use Sucralose, Aspartame and Acesulfam-K without taking the risk of getting fatter - not leaner, as I actually intended?"

For all three of the explicitly mentioned agents human studies clearly suggest that the answer is "Yes, you can!" And I will now dare saying that the of the most recent study from the Oita University in Japan are not going to change that - as long as you use them instead of carbs in your diet the said zero-calorie sweetener are going to help not block weight loss.

So why did the mice in the Mitsutomi study get obese then?

By anticipating the most important conclusion, I have made things easy for us, after all the only questions we still have to answer are:
  • Why did the mice in the Mitsutomi study get obese?
  • Is it possible that this is an erythritol-specific effect?
It would appear as it it could not be all too difficult to answer the first question. It was after all part of the research interests of the Japanese scientists, so that you would expect it to be answered in the discussion of their result. Well, let's see then, ...
Exactly what the energy drinks promise, the sugar water got the rats "on sucrose" going: They were >40% more active than their peers - without caffeine as you may notice (Mitsotomi. 2013)
"Compared with sucrose supplementation, NNS supplementation decreased the serum glucose level. Interestingly, compared with the control treatment, NNS supplementation increased the serum insulin level in mice with DIO. In addition, NNS administration influenced glucose tolerance compared to controls.

These observations suggest that NNS supplementation induced insulin resistance by increase of tissue triglyceride, although some NNSs are used to control hyperglycemia.

NNS supplementation increased the WAT leptin level in DIO mice in the present study.

It is possible that the high leptin level was related to body adiposity. Indeed, NNS administration increased the weight of epididymal fat. Thus, it is possible that the high leptin level was related to the influence on body adiposity." (Mitsotomi. 2013)
No, I don't see an explanation, rather a concise summary of the results, that tells us that the addition of plain sugar (33%)  to the drinking water did - as the scientists already expected - lead to a decrease in food intake and an increase in obesity and its nasty unhealthy side effects.
Figure 1: Differences in food intake & body composition of mice with 33% sucrose and 4% erythritol + aspartame in the drinking water (left) expressed relative to control w/ plain water, histology of lover (top) and white adipose tissue (WAT, bottom) of mice with regular (control) and sucrose respectively NNS drinking water (Mitsotomi. 2013)
Much to their own surprise, Mitsotomi et al. did also observe that the group that received the "non-nutritive sweeteners" as a 4% solution (99% of which were erythritol and 1% was aspartame) in their drinking water got exactly as fat (see Figure 1), had a slightly less pronounced increase in adipocyte size, and experienced a similar fatty acid deposition in the liver (NAFLD). And as if that had not been bad enough, there were also pathological changes in the "fat burning brown adipose tissue" (BAT) of the rodents in the NNS group - a physiological deterioration, Mitsotomi et al. observed exclusively in the erythritol + aspartame goup.
Figure 2: Leptin resistance (in WAT) and the major downregulation in UCP-1 (in BAT; both left) are candidates of which the researchers believe that they were responsible for the visible defect (right) in the BAT architecture (Mitsotomi. 2013)
Let's be honest, if you take another look at the BAT histology in Figure 2 (right) even you as a non-expert will see that there is a major difference between the meshed BAT in the rodents on the control diet and the messy BAT of the NNS group, compared to which the brown fat cells of the sugar guzzlers still look very healthy.

Remember: All this mess happened in the absence of an increase in calorie intake

Just to make this clear: This is not the first study to show that artificial sweeteners can have obesogenic effects in rodent models. In contrast to Naismith et al. (1995) and Blundell & Hill (1986) who observed a "pradoxical effects" of  artificial sweeteners on the appetite of their lab rodents, the rats in the study at hand did not overeat, though! They also moved about as much as their peers in the control group and still got fat and sick.

Want to change your "Fat-o-type"? Work out! | read more
In other words, the weight gain the Japanese researchers recorded was neither a result of a mismatch between energy intake and expenditure nor the consequence of a promotional effect of artificial sweeteners on the "sweet tooth" of the rodents. Rather than that it was either brought about or accompanied and promoted by the impairment of the thermogenic capacity of the brown adipose tissue, of which you can argue, based on histologies in Figure 2 that the brown adipose tissue of the furry "subjects" of this study was not just functionally, but also structurally compromised by the ingestion of the non-nutritive sweeteners.

The defective brown adipose tissue (BAT) and the correspondingly reduced UCP 1 expression (UCP increases mitochondrial uncoupling in BAT and burns off energy to increase the body temperature), led to a significant reduction in oxygen consumption. With the latter being a direct marker of fatty acid oxidation the it is difficult to say which came first, the defect in BAT or the onset of obesity. What we can say for sure, though, is that the defective BAT had its share in the rapid weight gain and the corresponding metabolic deterioration.

This could be an erythritol specific effect

Despite the fact that Mitsotomi et al. did not address the potential influence the type of artificial sweetener they used, it is not unlikely that the use of erythritol, of which I have seen dozens of toxicity studies, but no long(er) term feeding studies in a potentially obesogenic diet scenario, could explain the unexpected study outcome. So: "Is this an erythritol specific effect?"

An advantage of erythritol is that it has almost the same sweetness profile as sugar (sucrose), but is 30-40% less sweet (de Cock. 2012)
Without further studies, it is obviously not possible to answer this question, it does however not appear to be unlikely that it were the 99% of erythritol in the commercial erythritol + aspartam mixture the researchers used in their study that's to blame for the obesogenic effects. If this was a general NNS effect, a similar impairment of the brown adipose tissue and corresponding increases in body, muscle and liver fat should after all have been observed in previous studies, already. To my knowledge these studies do not exist - specifically not for aspartame. Without speculating about unpredictable interactions within the two we are thus left with erythritol as out only culprit.

While erythritol has only 60% to 70% of the sweetness of sucrose (comparing 10% solutions in water; this means you need much more of it to achieve a similar sweetness) it has an almost identical sweetness profile (no "off" tastes; cf. de Cock. 2012). This is not the only reason both scientists and the food industry are fond of the low-calorie sweetener. It's rather the combination of its gut- and tooth-friendliness that makes it such a valuable addition to everything sweet. So, despite the fact that it does share the the anti-caries effects with sugar alcohols like xylitol, it is so easy on the gut that its use is not restricted to chewing gums and other "food" items that need only marginal amounts of sweeteners to achieve the desired degree of sweetness. If you want to sweeten larger amounts of foods / beverages, erythritol is thus the sugar alcohol of choice
There is evidence that suggests aspartame reduces insulin - at least during workouts | learn more
Why don't you suspect aspartame? The reason that I am scrutinizing erythritol and not aspartame is simple. Despite or rather because of all the hoopla around potential toxic effects of aspartame it is one of the best researched artificial sweeteners and evidence for obesogenic effects in the absence of increases in food intake are simply non-existent. It may thus make this article more popular among the high number of aspartame haters out there, but it would not help us understand the experimental results,if I started lamenting about how Coke and Pepsi are trying to kill us.
If you take a peak at the Wikipedia article and many scientific papers, you will learn that erythritol has been shown to be mostly (90%) absorbed before the chyme enters the colon (Bernt. 1996). The non-negligible rest of the erythritol  (10%), on the other hand, is said to pass through the short and long intestine, where it is generally believed not to fermented by the gut bacteria (Arrigoni. 2005).

The cholesterol increase scientists observed in response to a high sucralose diet is another of the many yet not fully understood side effects of artifical sweeteners | learn more
In view of a more recent study by Beards et al. (2010) it is however more than questionable that this assumption for which researchers usually cite the in vitro results Arrigoni et al. presented in a 2005 paper is accurate.

Beards and her colleagues from the University of Reading in the UK were after all able to show that erythritol is not simply excreted undigested. Rather than that it is fermented and leads to changes in the bacterial composition and a 6.25x increase in acetate production.

In view of the beneficial effects of SFCA (acetate, propionate and butyrate) on the production of satiety hormones this certainly appears to be a good thing. From studies by Patil et al. we do however know that chronically high SCFA levels and decreased relative bacteroides levels are characteristic of features of human obesity (Patil. 2012; see Angelakis. 2012, as well).

If we include the comparatively short timespan (24h) in the course of which the said changes in the bacterial composition and acetate production in the Beards study occured and assume that this may, after days of constant erythritol exposure have destabilized the previous "ecosystem" in the gut, it does not appear too far fetched to assume that the rodents may have suffered from weight gain and all sorts of metabolic deterioration as a consequence of the potential lactobacilli + Atopobium overgrowth in response to the erythritol in their drinking water.

By now it should no longer appear totally odd to assume that neither artificial sweeteners per se, nor the "bad bad" aspartame are to blame for the "fat effects" the researchers observed in the study at hand, right? I mean, of all the three short chain fatty acids, butyrate, acetate and propionate, acetate is the one with the weakest antiobesogenic effects (Lin. 2012) and in view of the fact that it is preferentially used as a substrate for de novo lipogenesis (=deposition of fat) in colonocytes, hepatocytes and adipocytes (Samuel. 2008), both the fatty liver and the 172% increase in body fat could be explained by the constant influx of acetate from a dysbiotic gut - right?
Suggested Read + Podcast: "he Pro-Insulinogenic Effect of Artificial Sweeteners + Mechanisms & Consequences" | read more
Reason to be afraid - yes or no?"It could be possible...", these are the four little words that would have to go before each and every of the sentences in this conclusion. It could be possible that the interaction of erythritol with the gut microbiome of the rodents drove the accumulation of lipids in the liver, which would in turn have lead to the development of insulin and leptin resistance and could have compromised the function of the "fat burning brown adipose tissue" of our furry friends. The latter could have sped up the weight gain and may eventually explain why the mice in the "non-nutritive sweetener" group were by no means better off than their similarly obese peers in the sucrose group.

Despite the fact that it could also be possible that similar negative effects on the accumulation of liver and whole body fat would be observed in humans, the failure of the brown adipose tissue wouldn't be much of a problem for us, a species that has long lost most of its brown fat stores (learn more). Against that background and in view of the fact that I'd hope that no one of you follows a 60% fat, 20% carbohydrate diet and tries to sooth his / her sweet tooth with 2-3l of erythritol + aspartame sweetened water per day, I'd suggest you refrain from freaking out until we do have more compelling evidence that the stress hormones you will be producing are not more harmful than the few mg of sugar alcohols in your protein bars.
References:
  • Angelakis E, Armougom F, Million M, Raoult D. The relationship between gut microbiota and weight gain in humans. Future Microbiol. 2012 Jan;7(1):91-109.
  • Arrigoni E, Brouns F, Amadò R. Human gut microbiota does not ferment erythritol. Br J Nutr. 2005 Nov;94(5):643-6. 
  • Beards E, Tuohy K, Gibson G. Bacterial, SCFA and gas profiles of a range of food ingredients following in vitro fermentation by human colonic microbiota. Anaerobe. 2010 Aug;16(4):420-5.
  • Bernt WO, Borzelleca JF, Flamm G, Munro IC. Erythritol: a review of biological and toxicological studies. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 1996 Oct;24(2 Pt 2):S191-7. Review.
  • Blundell JE, Hill AJ. Paradoxical effects of an intense sweetener (aspartame) on appetite. Lancet 1986;1(8489):1092–3.
  • de Cock P. Erythritol. In "Sweeteners and Sugar Alternatives in Food Technology". 2nd edition. Ed. O'Donnell & Kearsley. Wiley. 2012.
  • Lin HV, Frassetto A, Kowalik EJ Jr, Nawrocki AR, Lu MM, Kosinski JR, Hubert JA, Szeto D, Yao X, Forrest G, Marsh DJ. Butyrate and propionate protect against diet-induced obesity and regulate gut hormones via free fatty acid receptor 3-independent mechanisms. PLoS One. 2012;7(4):e35240. 
  • Mitsutomi K et al. Effects of a nonnutritive sweetener on body adiposity and energy metabolism in mice with diet-induced obesity. Metabolism. Oct. 2013 [ahead of print]
  • Naismith DJ, Rhodes C. Adjustment in energy intake following the covert removal of sugar from the diet. J Hum Nutr Diet 1995;8:167–75.  
  • Patil DP, Dhotre DP, Chavan SG, Sultan A, Jain DS, Lanjekar VB, Gangawani J, Shah PS, Todkar JS, Shah S, Ranade DR, Patole MS, Shouche YS. Molecular analysis of gut microbiota in obesity among Indian individuals. J Biosci. 2012 Sep;37(4):647-57.
  • Samuel BS, Shaito A, Motoike T, Rey FE, Backhed F, Manchester JK, Hammer RE, Williams SC, Crowley J, Yanagisawa M, Gordon JI. Effects of the gut microbiota on host adiposity are modulated by the short-chain fatty-acid binding G protein-coupled receptor, Gpr41. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008 Oct 28;105(43):16767-72.
  • Sell H, Deshaies Y, Richard D. The brown adipocyte: update on its metabolic role. Int J Biochem Cell Biol 2004;36: 2098–104.

Melato Cola™ or What? Fructose for Improved Glucose Metabolism and Melatonin to Counter Fructose Overload

There was a time, when Coke still contained "coke"... so why not add some melatonin for health benefits? I am obviously just kidding here, but a combination of fructose + melatonin may actually make sense.
The title of today's SuppVersity article is confusing, I know. Firstly, it contains the almost heretical notion that fructose could actually improve instead of impair your glucose metabolism and secondly it does not appear to make sense that you would have to use melatonin to counter the pro-diabetic effects of fructose, if the latter is in fact so good for you.

Before you are getting totally confused, let me clarify how the improvements in glucose metabolism and the melatonin-powered diabesity protection go together: Both have been observed in a recent study from the Pontificia Universidad Católica Argentina in Buenos Aires, Argentina (Cardinali. 2013), in the course of which the improved glucose metabolism was nothing but a side-finding of a study Cardinali et al. conducted to  examine the effect of melatonin when it is administered to rodents simultaneously with fructose in the drinking water.

This is the Coke + sufficient sleep study ;-)

Obviously this is not as the subheading would suggest the "coke + sufficient sleep study", but in light of the fact melatonin is after all the "sleep" hormone and in view of the results of a recent study by Senador et al. who observed that fructose had a negative effect on glucose management only, when it was available during the light phase (which is the inactive phase for a rodent; cf. Senador. 2012), it comes close; and that despite the fact that fructose timing was yet not an issue in the study at hand. Instead of modifying the timing, Cardinali et al. used different amounts of fructose with half of the rodents in the experimental arm of the study having a 5% and the other half having a 10% fructose solution as their main water supply.

Figure 1: Glycemia (mg/dL) 0-140min after 2g/kg body weight  glucose tolerance test (Cardinali. 2013)
If we trust the nutritiondata.com information about the average fructose content of a "carbonated beverage, cola, with higher caffeine" ...
  • the rodents in the 10% fructose group were consuming the total carbohydrate equivalent of coke, but with a 100% instead of ~50% fructose content, while
  • the rodents in the 5% fructose group were consuming less total carbohydrates, but roughly the same amount of fructose someone would ingest if he drank nothing but coke.
A direct comparison of either of the groups to the "coke only"-drinking human being is thus not warranted.

It is nevertheless intriguing that the 5% fructose group showed a significantly higher glucose tolerance - not just compared to the 10% fructose group, but also compared to the control group that was fed with water, only (see figure 1).
"Meta-Analysis: Lower Glucose, Insulin and HbA1c Levels From 'Catalytic' Dose of 36g Fructose" | read more
"But isn't fructose the reason you develop diabetes?" Before we get on to the effects of melatonin, I want to emphasize that this is by no means an outlier, in fact, I have written about the catalytic effects of 36g of fructose in a previous post "6x Bananas a Day!? Meta-Analysis: Lower Glucose, Insulin and HbA1c Levels From 'Catalytic' Dose of 36g Fructose" (learn more).

Previous studies have also shown that a 2:1 mixture of glucose + fructose is at least up to the regular glucose only drinks in terms of post-workout glycogen repletion (learn more) - partly because the fructose will keep the liver occupied, while the muscles suck up the glucose.
As previously mentioned the main research interest of the Argentinian scientists was not the effect of fructose on the glucose sensitivity of their rodents, but rather if the administration of 25 μg/mL of melatonin in the tapwater the rodents received would lead to significant changes in the study outcomes.
Figure 2: Effects of melatonin in drinking water with or without 5% [left] and 10% [right] fructose on body weight, systolic blood pressure and glucose response to glucose tolerance test (Cardinali. 2013)
As you can see in figure 1 it did: Melatonin did ameliorate the weight gain, and the increase in blood pressure that was observed even with only 5% fructose in the drinking water. It did not improve the glycemic response of the rats in the 5% fructose group even more, though, but it bulnted the negative effects of the 10% fructose solution had on the glycemic response in the glucose tolerance (figure 2, right).
SuppVersity Suggested Read: "Circadian Rhythmicity - Sunlight, Bluelight, Backlight & Co Mess Learn How THey W/ Your Internal Clock. Plus: Tips & Tricks to Prevent Negative Side-Effects" | read more
Is a melatonin solution the solution? If we also consider the negative effects of 10% fructose feeding on LDL (the rodents on 10% + Mel had even lower LDL than the control), the normalization of triglycerides and the potential therapeutic reduction in uric acid (-30% even vs. control), of which Cardinali et al. point out that it could have therapeutic effects in people with gout and other uric acid related metabolic disorders, it would appear smart that do dissolve the human equivalent dose of 21-35mg melatonin in your drinking water in the morning and keep guzzling it all day long.

Well, as I said, it "would appear to be" smart, but is it really smart? I wouldn't be too sure about that. Despite the fact that that you probably won't die, the chronically increased systemic melatonin levels could have long-term negative consequences on your circadian rhythm that could undo all potential benefits.

Restricting your fructose intake to fructose from fruit, only, getting enough sleep and using melatonin timely, i.e. 20min before bed would thus appear to be a more prudent approach to improve / maintain optimal blood glucose levels and insulin sensitivity. And if you are more into hard facts than "erring on the side of caution", you may consider the acute decrease in glucose tolerance, Cagnacci et al. observed in postmenopausal women, when they participated in a blood glucose test after the administration of 1 mg melatonin more convincing (Cagnacci. 2001).
References:
  • Cagnacci A, Arangino S, Renzi A, Paoletti AM, Melis GB, Cagnacci P, Volpe A. Influence of melatonin administration on glucose tolerance and insulin sensitivity of postmenopausal women. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf). 2001 Mar;54(3):339-46. 
  • Cardinali DP, Bernasconi PA, Reynoso R, Toso CF, Scacchi P. Melatonin may curtail the metabolic syndrome: studies on initial and fully established fructose-induced metabolic syndrome in rats. Int J Mol Sci. 2013 Jan 25;14(2):2502-14.
  • Senador D, Shewale S, Irigoyen MC, Elased KM, Morris M. Effects of restricted fructose access on body weight and blood pressure circadian rhythms. Exp Diabetes Res. 2012;2012:459087.

Restore & Maintain Insulin Sensitivity - Basics: Turn Your Lifestyle Upside Down With These 5 "No-Quick-Fix" Tips

It is hard and it takes time, but as long as it's "only" insulin resistance and not full-blown diabetes (=pancreatic failure) most people can get rid of it by turning their lives upside down.
I am sure people are going to misunderstand this, but in the end, insulin resistance was, is and will always be a consequence of "obesity". Maybe not in the way it is currently understood with the BMI determining whether you are "normal" or "obese", but certainly if you define being obese as being fat and storing the most part of the fat in the visceral adipose tissue and the liver.

Thus our definition of what I would like to call "metabolically relevant adiposity" instead of "obesity" can apply to lean and "obese" people alike. In fact, the number of people with a "normal body weight" and insulin resistance is ever increasing. So, if you don't want to be one of them, you better keep the following five DOs and avoid the corresponding "DON'Ts", which would be sitting or lying around all day, eating and drinking sugar-sweetened foods and beverages, consuming alcohol (and other hepatoxic substances), smoking cigarettes, staying up late, eating 24/7, missing your daily time-outs and abusing stimulants.
Details on the optional use supplements & medications will follow next Sunday. What I can already tell you, though, is that can get rid of insulin resistance without a single supplement or pharmacological agent, but you will never get off the diabesity track, if you are unwilling (don't you ever tell me you are "unable") to change the way you eat and increase your daily activity levels.

And yes, lifestyle modification is all it takes for most of us to regain insulin sensitivity and rid ourselves of type II diabetes (in the early stages): With 50% of the subjects being able to normalize their blood glucose levels and more than 50% of the type 2 diabetics in the study being in remission on the follow up, he Malmö study was the first, but is not the only the large scale intervention study that demonstrated the potent anti-diabesity effects of diet and exercise (Eriksson. 1991).
I. Work out anaerobically, aerobically and frequently

Workout evolution: It goes without saying that I don't expect you to start working out 5x per week "cold turkey", i.e. if you have been sitting around 364 out of 365 days of the year for the most part of your previous life (I don't have to repeat that this is over, now, right?). On the other hand, I would be lying if I told you that you can actually make measurable progress without at least 3 workouts per week. I would thus suggest you start with a 2 + 1 strategy using 2 full body workouts and one light intensity cardio training, after a month you add another cardio session and after 3 month you will add in the additional strength training session. After 6 months you switch to a split routine and increase the intensity on your cardio sessions by 15% - this should not feel more intense now that your fitness has improved than the original regimen you've taken up 180days before.
There is nothing that helps your body clean up the mess like working out. Researchers from the University of Verona and Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata of Verona have just published a paper on the differential effects of strength and aerobic training on the liver fat content in type 2 diabetic subjects with NAFLD. The results were pretty amazing.

After only 4 months in the course of which the subjects ate according to the (imho not exactly optimal dietary recommendations for type II diabetics; i.e. low fat) and 3 workouts per week, both the subjects in the 3x9 exercise in a circuit training fashion and their peers in the 60min aerobics @ 60-65% of the max. heart rate had lost 32.8% and 25.9% liver fat.
"Additionally, hepatic steatosis (defined as hepatic fat content>5.56%) disappeared in about one-quarter of the patients in each intervention group (23.1% in the AER group and 23.5% in the RES group." (Bacchi. 2013)
While there is no study that measured the effects of training fasted on the liver directly, I guess you can take it for granted that esp. the group doing the aerobics could have improved their results even further, if they had performed their 60min of cardio on empty.

Bottom line: Get active or stay active. Combine resistance and aerobic training. Get serious and start working your way up to 5 workouts per week with 2x aerobic (steady state walking on an incline treadmill or taking a fast walk for 45min) and 3x resistance training sessions (either a circuit training or a pull, push, legs, 3-way split; don't train to failure in more than one set per exercise, keep the reps in the 8-10 range, increase the weights appropriately, do max. 18 sets per workout, in & out of the gym in <30min) to get rid of your insulin resistance and at least 3 workouts (2x weights, 1x LISS) if you just want to keep your insulin sensitivity is already high and you want it to stay just there.

II. Minimize your sugar intake, control your carb intake

In case you wonder where the 120g come from and if this is just some random number, I suggest you go back to a previous SuppVersity post, namely "Carbohydrate Shortage in Paleo Land: New Data for A Scientific Outlook at the Low-to-No Carb Paleo Confusion. Will More Than 125g of Carbs Make You Fat?", you may also want to reread my interview w/ Sean Casey at CasePerformance.com
Sugar, irrespective of whether its plain table sugar or HFCS is a no-go from now. The same goes for all products that contain significant amounts of it. And no, you are not going to cut back slowly on your Coke, you know that you've failed miserably before and you will fail again. You simply won't buy and drink any sugar containing beverages (including "healthy" juices which have only recently been associated with an almost 25% increased risk of developing type II diabetes) and foods.

At the same time, you will reduce your carbohydrate intake to 120g per day with a 40g limit on a per meal basis. It should not be necessary and may even be detrimental to go further down, because you won't ever learn how to walk without a crutch if you sit in a wheelchair - or to leave the metaphors behind: Unless you intend to stay insulin resistant and metabolically unflexible for the rest of your life, you better not go "no carb", as this will effectively require a high degree of (physiological) insulin resistance to work (for the morbidly obese it may yet be necessary to take the ketogenic route).

Moreover, the "gray area" between 120g and no-carbs sets you up to hypoglycemic episodes as your body will not effectively switch into ketosis, which would be necessary to supply a steady amount of energy. This problem will become even more pronounced, when you try to make up for the lack of carbs by consuming exorbitant amounts of protein.

Unless you are "skinny fat" (normal or low BMI + insulin resistant) you will use the reduction in carb intake to generate a -15% to -20% caloric deficit to shed a couple of pounds of fat weight - and no, this is NOT going to happen without a caloric deficit.

Bottom line: 120-150g is an amount of carbs you should aim for as an intermediate goal. With <50g of carbs per serving you should be able to handle that without major blood sugar excursions, as long as you stick to your workout regimen and totally cut out processed foods with simple sugars. Also, fructose from whole fruit is not your enemy! You just have to make sure you account for it in your daily carb allowance. The latter is not the case for the minimal amount of carbs in green leafy veggies and co (broccoli, calliflour, zuccini, asparagus etc. you can safely fill yourself up on those)

III. Limit your alcohol intake, quit smoking and avoid medications

Contrary to its name, which is "non-alcoholic fatty liver disease", alcohol, does still play a major role in the etiology of NAFLD. It may not be the sole reason, but the way it inhibits the normal function of your liver makes it more susceptible to the junk-food assaults it's exposed to on an almost daily basis. The same goes for all medications / "supplements" with hepatoxic effects.

Compromised liver health as in beginning or full-blown (N-)AFLD is a totally underestimated risk factor for gyneco- & lipomastia as it hampers the not only the glucose, but also the hormone metabolism in the liver (learn more)
Cigarettes on the other hand may not be directly damaging your live, but they stimulate the central nervous system, promote gluconeogenesis and impair it's shut-down, when your blood sugar is already high, so that your liver will actively and acutely contribute to the deterioration in blood sugar metabolism. At the same time the increased efflux of free fatty acids (FFA) from the adipose tissue to the liver increases your risk of developing NAFLD.

Moreover, nicotine does also increase the chronic mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR)/p70S6 K activity and insulin receptor substrate-1 (IRS-1) Ser636 phosphorylation and will thus directly promote skeletal muscle insulin resistance (Bajaj. 2012).

Bottom line: While the chronic ingestion of more than 1 glass of wine per day is going to give you alcoholic liver disease, regular weekend binges precipitate and accelerate the development of NAFLD and insulin resistance. Cigarettes will compromise your insulin sensitivity in multiple ways and the use of medication, let alone performance enhancing drugs with detrimental side effects on the liver will exponentially increase the negative impact of any dietary glitch on your insulin sensitivity.

IV. Sleep, de-stress and control your stimulant intake

Please remember: Sympathetic overtraining from heavy lifting can cause sleeplesness while para-sympathetic overtraining from training too much (you can easily make the transition from sympathetic to parasympathetic overtraining), will leave you exhausted 24/7 - the 5x/week scheme above is only sustainable if you stick to the given volume and intensity limits and light intensity steady state cardio training (if you want on empty early in the morning). The latter is a better complement to restistance training than HIIT for improving insulin resistance because there is less overlap between the metabolic pathways they target).
Not getting enough sleep, alone will hamper you ability to handle glucose. This is mostly due to changes in the hormonal profile with chronically elevated cortisol levels esp. in the evening, a lack of nightly growth hormone stimulation and a desynchronization of the central (brain) and peripheral (liver, muscle, other organs) clock.
Figure 1: After 6 nights with only 4h of sleep (left) your glucose insulin response to breakfast deteriorates compared to 6 nights with 12h spend in bed (not necessarily 12h sleeping; Spiegel. 1999)
Even if you are sleeping enough constant psychological stress will have very similar effects on your insulin sensitivity.

The latter is also true for the use of stimulants. It's scary to see how many of us depend on them to even make it through the day. Aside from circadian shifts, they will have the same detrimental effects on the FFA metabolism and gluconeogensis as cigarette smoking (see discussion under item III).

Bottom line: Plan your sleep and time-outs across the day as rigorously as your workout & nutrition. Spend 8h in bet every night (if that does not help try 1-10mg of melatonin; learn more). Close the curtains and use ear-plugs if that helps you sleep. Schedule at least 15 minutes of idleness every 3h. That's about as much time as it takes to brew and drink a cup of tea. The emphasis here is on "a" (=a single) cup of tea. If you feel too tired to make it through the day without >400mg of caffeine, this is a clear cut sign you got to revise your sleep & destress routine.

V. Fast, get enough protein and watch your omega-6 intake

US childhood obesity map. Go back to the "Insulin Resitance Saga" to learn about the roots diebesity in the kindergarten.
I am aware that the general advice is different, but if you eat every 1-2 hours even the blood glucose levels of a normal person will hardly ever go back to those levels, where you want them for AMPK to go up and initiate the "decluttering" process in your liver and the rest of your body (learn more).

Also try and to get ~2x the RDA, i.e. 1.6g of protein per kg of body weight from food (learn why) and spread your protein intake across your meals in a way that ensures that you'll get at least 30g or quality protein per meal (find out why this is important). Consider using a protein shake after your resistance training sessions.

If possible include fatty fish in your diet on one, better two days of the week and keep an eye on your overall omega-6 intake. Try to reduce it to achieve a 5:1 omega-6 to omega-3 ratio (or lower; learn why). If you cannot force yourself to eat fish, consume 1-2g of fish oil in capsules every other day.

Too much of a good thing? Micrograph of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, caused by the same kind of lipid accumulations M-Shirazi et al. observed in rats after receiving high dose fish oil supplements in a 2011 study (learn more)
Don't discard the value of ALA (=short chain omega-3 fatty acids) and don't fool yourself to believe that saturated fats were totally benign. Increased levels of palmitic acid in the hypothalamus and skeletal muscle, for example, are mechanistically linked to local insulin resistance (Benoit. 2009; Hirabara. 2010). Everything in moderation!

In this context it is also worth mentioning that you do not want to totally eliminate omega-6 fatty acids from your diet. A 2012 study by Sawada et al., for example, showed that the allegedly bad arachidonic acid (ARA, the end-product of the enzymatic conversion of short-chain omega-6 fatty acids) is a 75x more potent activator of skeletal muscle glucose uptake than oleic acid and on par with it's omega-3 cousin DHA (Sawada. 2012).

Bottom line: Don't eat 2h before bed, and / or skip breakfast to extend your daily fasting period to at least 10h, but no more than 16h (you need that 8h window to fit in 2-3 meals). Get enough protein in your diet, but make sure you are not living off protein alone. Try to normalize your omega-6:omega:3 ratio. Strive for an 5:1 ratio of n-6:n-3 or less. Don't be fooled by the "saturated fat is not the problem"-lie and keep in mind that palmitic acid, not arachidonic acid is the bad guy, when it comes to skeletal muscle insulin resistance (things may look different when we are talking about endothelial inflammation, but this guide is about the remission of insulin resistance).
Dont forget to come back next week for Part II of this two part series.

References:
  • Bajaj M. Nicotine and insulin resistance: when the smoke clears. Diabetes. 2012 Dec; 61(12):3078-80. 
  • Benoit SC, Kemp CJ, Elias CF, Abplanalp W, Herman JP, Migrenne S, Lefevre AL, Cruciani-Guglielmacci C, Magnan C, Yu F, Niswender K, Irani BG, Holland WL, Clegg DJ. Palmitic acid mediates hypothalamic insulin resistance by altering PKC-theta subcellular localization in rodents. J Clin Invest. 2009 Sep;119(9):2577-89.
  • Eriksson KF, Lindgärde F. Prevention of type 2 (non-insulin-dependent) diabetes mellitus by diet and physical exercise. The 6-year Malmö feasibility study. Diabetologia. 1991 Dec;34(12):891-8
  • Hirabara SM, Curi R, Maechler P. Saturated fatty acid-induced insulin resistance is associated with mitochondrial dysfunction in skeletal muscle cells. J Cell Physiol. 2010 Jan;222(1):187-94.
  • Sawada K, Kawabata K, Yamashita T, Kawasaki K, Yamamoto N, Ashida H. Ameliorative effects of polyunsaturated fatty acids against palmitic acid-induced insulin resistance in L6 skeletal muscle cells. Lipids Health Dis. 2012 Mar 12;11:36. 
  • M-Shirazi M, Taleban FA, Abadi AR, Sabetkasaei M. Fish oil increases atherosclerosis and hepatic steatosis, although decreases serum cholesterol in Wistar rat. J Res Med Sci. 2011 May;16(5):583-90. PubMed PMID: 22091279; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3214368.
  • Spiegel K, Leproult R, Van Cauter E. Impact of sleep debt on metabolic and endocrine function. Lancet. 1999 Oct 23;354(9188):1435-9.