Posted by Larry Hoover on March 9, 2016, at 22:37:35
In reply to Re: Keto diet, posted by Hello321 on March 6, 2016, at 15:53:09
I hadn't noticed this thread until now. I hope you don't mind if I jump in.
While I was an active member of this group, many years ago, I posted this PubMed abstract:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12415536
Depress Anxiety. 2002;16(3):118-20.
A cross-national relationship between sugar consumption and major depression?
Westover AN1, Marangell LB.
Abstract
We have preliminarily investigated the hypothesis that sugar consumption may impact the prevalence of major depression by correlating per capita consumption of sugar with the prevalence of major depression. Major depression prevalence data (annual rate/100) was obtained from the Cross-National Epidemiology of Major Depression and Bipolar Disorder study [Weissman et al., 1996]. Sugar consumption data from 1991 was obtained from the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations. For the primary analysis, sugar consumption rates (cal/cap/day) were correlated with the annual rate of major depression, using the Pearson correlation coefficient. For the six countries with available data for the primary analysis, there was a highly significant correlation between sugar consumption and the annual rate of depression (Pearson correlation 0.948, P=0.004). Naturally, a correlation does not necessarily imply etiology. Caveats such as the limited number of countries with available data must be considered. Although speculative, there are some mechanistic reasons to consider that sugar consumption may directly impact the prevalence of major depression. Possible relationships between sugar consumption, beta-endorphins, and oxidative stress are discussed.
The message I took from this at the time was that sugar might actually be a marker for food-processing in general, but the correlation is so high (0.948), it's a very strong relationship, no matter how you wish to explain it.
That article started me on a journey of inquiry. I've been thinking about sugar intake for a long time. And, I've come to the conclusion that sugar is nothing more than a toxin. A toxin with energy content. How it came to be a food group (carbs) is nothing more than an artefact of humans developing agriculture, and the rise of the food processing industry.
A toxin, you say? What made me come to that conclusion is examining what happens to diabetics. Sugar damages every tissue in the body, unless cells can be regulated in some way, to force them to take it up. If sugar stays in the blood, permanent and irreversible chemical damage happens. We've clearly linked insulin secretion to sugar uptake by cells, but we're also aware of metabolic syndrome, whereby the body gradually becomes resistant to insulin. If that progresses, Type II diabetes can develop.
How can that happen, though? You have to look at what else insulin does. Insulin completely shuts down the metabolism of fats (fat metabolism restarts about 6 hours after insulin levels begin to fall again). It also triggers 'de novo lipogenesis', which is a fancy way of saying fat is created (from carbs). And the specific fatty acids that your body can create from carbs are quite limited. But those specific fatty acids cause fat storage cells called adipocytes to 'turn on'. Those carb-derived fatty acids cannot be burned, because insulin has shut down fat metabolism. Nope, those specific fatty acids are preferentially stored away 'for later'.
And guess what those activated adipocytes do? They secrete hormones that make you crave, I mean crave, carbs. And those hormones create true addictive responses in the brain. The exact same cell groups that respond to cocaine respond to adipocyte hormones. Your fat cells are endocrine glands.
In my opinion, when the hormonal influence of activate adipocytes becomes greater than the hormonal influence of the pancreas, Type II diabetes is inevitable. That's why weight loss alone can 'cure' Type II diabetes.
Humans did not have farms, let alone supermarkets, when our bodies evolved to respond the way that they do to carb intake. Especially in temperate (rather than tropical) climates, the availability of carbs would have been seasonal, and limited. In contrast, in modern diets, carbs dominate our calorie intake. We even have the guidance from the Food Pyramid, to steer us that way. Did you know that the Food Pyramid was created by an advertising agency in the 1950's, trying to boost consumption of basic agricultural products? The USDA simply borrowed it. There is no science behind it, whatsoever.
I personally believe that our true metabolic baseline energy source was fat first, protein second. When carbs were temporarily available in our ancestors' diets, despite the toxicity of high sugar levels in their blood, the capacity to secrete insulin could save the day. Only those people who could survive famines could pass their genes along to the next generation. Those who stored fat from carbs. Those who craved carbs when available, survived. But farming and supermarkets have made carbs part of every meal, 365 days a year.
There, methinks, lies the rub.
Lar
poster:Larry Hoover
thread:1086683
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20160306/msgs/1086979.html