Studies On Sucrose And Starch

[rei]

Fructose is a toxin that our body has learned to convert into energy. This causes it to have "hormetic" effect on sugar metabolism, allowing the body to process the glucose with less insulin. This might have been an acquired evolutionary trait since the two are mostly found together in food, and almost always combined with other quality nutrients.

But it also means that when you overfeed on fructose you are going from hormetic to toxic and start to change metabolism towards diabetic state because the liver gets so stressed. Add unsaturated fat to the mix and you are getting a double whammy. Add alcohol and it is triple assault since it stresses almost same metabolic pathway as fructose.

 

[jet9]

Replacement of dietary fat by sucrose or starch: effects on 14 d ad libitum energy intake, energy expenditure and body weight in formerly obese and... - PubMed - NCBI



Liquid versus solid carbohydrate: effects on food intake and body weight. - PubMed - NCBI


Isocaloric exchange of dietary starch and sucrose in humans. II. Effect on fasting blood insulin, glucose, and glucagon and on insulin and glucose ... - PubMed - NCBI

This is interesting (but they're eating high fat), as there's a study on rats showing something similar:
Effects of sucrose vs starch diets on in vivo insulin action, thermogenesis, and obesity in rats. - PubMed - NCBI

Differential effects of fructose versus glucose on brain and appetitive responses to food cues and decisions for food rewards. - PubMed - NCBI

great find! thanks for posting.

 

[Hgreen56]

In that first study (sucrose vs. starch vs. fat) the energy intake was reduced on the starch diet. The authors assume that reason must be "either an increased satiating power or reduced palatability compared with the sucrose and fat diets." The diet contained a lot more fiber than the other ones.

Look at the changed body compostion!

View attachment 5202e

C = control, PO = post obese

fat free mass is not necessarily muscle mass.
Like the study's in this topic already proving (and debunking peat ideas), sugars cause more adrenaline/stress hormones than starch.
That's way you have great fatt loss results on starch than on sugars.
Sugar cause adrenaline = inflammation = Holding lot more water weight.
So the sucrose group not only gaining fat but also lot of water (fat free mass)

 

[Giraffe]

fat free mass is not necessarily muscle mass.
Like the study's in this topic already proving (and debunking peat ideas), sugars cause more adrenaline/stress hormones than starch.
That's way you have great fatt loss results on starch than on sugars.
Sugar cause adrenaline = inflammation = Holding lot more water weight.
So the sucrose group not only gaining fat but also lot of water (fat free mass)

Why are you pretending that the sucrose group has gained fat? Have you actually read the study? (fulltext link)

The starch group didn't like their food, and they ate little. That's why they lost weight.

In conclusion, a reduction in energy intake, body weight and fat mass was observed when normal-weight subjects with or without a history of obesity consumed a starch- and fiber-rich diet ad libitum for 14 d. In contrast to this, no significant changes in either of these parameters were observed on the sucrose-rich diet, however, 24h EE and sympathoadrenal activity was increased, with no untoward effects on blood pressure, compared with the starch-rich and fat-rich diet.

Adrenaline can't be reduced to its role in the "fight or flight" response. It is released in response to a wide variety of stimuli. Quiet standing vs sitting will result in a doubling of adrenaline levels. The differences in the study discussed here were not large enough to even change the heart rate. Below I will quote from a different study which gives an idea of proportions.

.....

So this picture is from the "succrose vs starch vs high fat" study discussed here:

A = post obese, B = controls

For easier comparison I have conversed the units:

pg/mL	nmol/L
400	2,18
200	1,09
150	0,82
125	0,68
100	0,55
75	0,41
50	0,27

Epinephrine Plasma Metabolic Clearance Rates and Physiologic Thresholds for Metabolic and Hemodynamic Actions in Man

In this study men received adrenaline infusions at different rates to determine certain thresholds.

The plasma epinephrine threshold for increments in heart rate was 50-100 pg/ml, for increments in systolic blood pressure the threshold was 75-125 pg/ml, whereas for decrements in diastolic blood pressure, the threshold was 150-200 pg/ml. Increments in the plasma glucose concentration and glucose production and decrements in glucose clearance occurred at threshold values of 150-200 pg/ml. The plasma epinephrine thresholds for increments in blood lactate and beta-hydroxybutyrate were similar to those for glucose, but lower for increments in blood glycerol, 75-125 pg/ml. The threshold for the initial suppression of plasma insulin was 400pg/ml, higher than that of the other responsive variables.

From mean (±SD) basal values of 34±18 in 60 normal subjects studied in our laboratory, mean plasma epinephrine concentrations risen nearly 2-fold during quiet standing (6), ~3-fold during cigarette smoking (26), from 2-13-fold during mild to heavy exercise (27), and 50-fold during insulin-induced hypoglycemia (28). Notably, physiologic decrements in the plasma glucose concentration - from 95 to 60mg/dl - were associated with an early seven-fold rise in plasma epinephrine levels, with a maximum mean value of 230pg/ml (29). Similar values are achieved during elective cholecystectomy, and higher values occur in various pathophysiologic states such as diabetic ketoacidosis (30), acute myocardial infarction (31), and pheochromocytoma (32).

 

[Hgreen56]

Why are you pretending that the sucrose group has gained fat? Have you actually read the study? (fulltext link)

because the PO sucrose group gained a little fat.

But now i read the study, I admit that I was wrong.
but honestly I don't quite understand it all but that's because of my bad English.

That the starch group eat less and lost weight i understand.
But what i don't understand is that the sucrose group has increase adrenaline levels. (which means high cortisol right?)
"After 14 d on the sucrose diet, 24 h energy expenditure as well as postprandial plasma adrenaline and noradrenaline concentrations, were significantly increased compared with the other two diets."
i remembering this topic/study. It says sugar stops stress response.

So why 2 different results?

 

[Giraffe]

But what i don't understand is that the sucrose group has increase adrenaline levels. (which means high cortisol right?)

"The effects of a little adrenaline, and a lot of adrenaline, are very different, with a high concentration of adrenaline decreasing the efficiency of phosphorylation." [Ray Peat]

Since even light physical exercise increases adrenaline more than the difference you see in the study discussed above, the levels can't be too deleterious.

Here is another example:

Catecholamines and the effects of exercise, training and gender

For Korht et al., adrenaline and noradrenaline plasma concentrations increase, on average, >40% in an upright position. In this last study, the adrenaline concentrations pass from 43 to 62 ng/L (0.23–0.34 nmol/L) and the noradrenaline concentrations from 348 to 696 ng/L (2.06–4.1 nmol/L) between the lying and the upright position.

Please note, that the levels mentioned here are higher than in the diet study above.

By the way, Ray Peat was obviously asked about the diet study:

in response to that study ray said it's a possibility that sucrose lowers cortisol which allows adrenaline to come to the surface, and adrenaline is better than cortisol until hypothyroidism is fixed in which both get lowered. he's also said sodium lowers adrenaline.

It would be interesting to have a study that lasted a little longer. I wonder if the differences go away after 4 or 8 weeks. I'd also like to know the cholesterol levels.