So, is this an open door to scare people away from fruit?
Major Study Claims to Identify The Root Cause of Obesity: Fructose
Submitted 1 year ago by throws_lemy@lemmy.nz to science@mander.xyz
https://www.sciencealert.com/major-study-claims-to-identify-the-root-cause-of-obesity-fructose
Comments
qyron@sopuli.xyz 1 year ago
livus@kbin.social 1 year ago
@qyron fruit is healthy.
The fructose in fruit isn't as easily absorbed due to fibre. Also there's a natural limit to how much we can consume, no one eats 20 oranges in one sitting.
qyron@sopuli.xyz 1 year ago
no one eats 20 oranges in one sitting
Unless they are looking for a serious case of the runs.
But I admit to have over indulged on this particular fruit more than once.
msage@programming.dev 1 year ago
So like freshly squeezed orange juice in large quantities?
java@beehaw.org 1 year ago
No, the study is talking about other sources of fructose:
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/…/oby.23920
Though the study doesn’t say that fructose is the root cause of obesity from what I see (search doesn’t work properly there). I’m not sure if in such a complex mechanism as a human body a single cause of obesity can exist. Additionally, our bodies differ and single mutation can change the outcome.
p03locke@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 year ago
The title is so misleading that it borders on lying.
The root cause of all obesity everywhere is not fructose. That implies that if you don’t eat fructose or generate fructose, you will not be obese. Fructose might be contributing factor to obesity, but it is hardly a root cause or “the” root cause.
qyron@sopuli.xyz 1 year ago
I overstepped on my comment but after years of being vehiculated as an healthy sugar, this is the kind of title capable of triggering that sort of thought.
And agreed. It may be a part of the problem but it is risky to say this or that is the root of the obesity problem.
MonkCanatella@sh.itjust.works 1 year ago
this comment is an open door to brain rot
Aux@lemmy.world 1 year ago
In other news: the water is wet.
kattenluik@feddit.nl 1 year ago
I really, really hope you understand that your comment is entirely useless and just spamming.
morphballganon@lemmy.world 1 year ago
No, their comment is correct. Water is indeed wet.
If you take issue with them stating an obvious fact, perhaps instead you could take issue with the OP, which did the same thing.
ParsnipWitch@feddit.de 1 year ago
Water is not wet. It makes things wet but it’s not wet. Unless you can describe to me what dry water looks like?
sj_zero 1 year ago
It would be amazing if we found that just one ingredient could be traced to all the suffering from obesity.
Sterile_Technique@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Regardless of method, weight always boils down to a balance of calories consumed vs calories burned.
Your control of calories burned is limited - outside of physical exercise, your body does a lot of crap on its own, and finding the number of calories you passively burn on an average day is a major hurdle.
To do that, log and calculate the caloric value of everything that goes into your mouth; and your weight. If your weight is trending up, reduce your intake and keep checking. Once it stabilizes, you’ve got your number. If your baseline is weird, something’s fucking with your metabolism - see your doctor (for real, that could be a sign of some really bad shit).
From there, you can either further decrease calories consumed by eating/drinking less, or increase calories burned by cranking up the exercise, or a combo of the two. You’ll be more comfortable/satiated if you limit things like processed shit, but you can literally eat nothing but Twinkies and still lose weight if you stay within your caloric budget (you’ll also be starving all the time, pissed off, and unless you’re a fucking robot, give in and eat some actual food, breaking your caloric budget and thus your goals, so don’t actually try the Twinkie thing, but it’s ‘technically’ possible).
Any and every diet that actually works does so via a caloric deficit. Maybe fructose is the biggest enemy; maybe it’s other sugars; or fats; but keep your caloric consumption-to-burn ratio in the negative regardless of source, and you WILL lose weight.
jaschen@lemm.ee 1 year ago
TLDR: calories in, calories out.
qwertyqwertyqwerty@lemmy.one 1 year ago
I’ve always personally believed in low-carb diets, but I still agree that calories in/out is the main factor for weight gain. That being said, some calories are not calculated right. I remember reading a study on Almonds that said something like 33% of the calories from Almonds are not absorbed, so “100-calorie” packs of almonds are only 66 calories. In this way, not all calories are the same because the way we calculate them isn’t right all of the time. Also, calories in/out doesn’t account for foods that are unhealthy for other reasons, or could cause you to eat more than you would otherwise, like HFCS.
Bluetreefrog@lemmy.world 1 year ago
The thing that this perspective doesn’t take into account is hunger. It’s all fine and well to say control your calorific intake, but willpower is a finite and limited resource and if it’s the mechanism used to manage calorific intake it will inevitably fail you. Especially when self-control relies on glucose levels in the blood and the aforementioned willpower is being used to reduce those glucose levels.
In the absence of fructose, fat consumption is controlled through the suppression of hunger by the CCK feedback loop. In the absence of fructose, carb consumption is controlled through the insulin/glucagon feedback loop.
Fructose just gets converted into fatty acids without any control loop, leaving you laden with excess fatty acids and still hungry.
Sucrose, which is sugar, is 50% fructose. So it’s not just Americans with their high fructose corn syrup who are being bombarded with calories that our hunger can’t see, it’s anyone eating foods sweetened with sugar.