Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Medicine Science

High Fructose Corn Syrup Causes Bigger Weight Gain In Rats 542

krou writes "In an experiment conducted by a Princeton University team, 'Rats with access to high-fructose corn syrup gained significantly more weight than those with access to table sugar, even when their overall caloric intake was the same.' Long-term consumption also 'led to abnormal increases in body fat, especially in the abdomen, and a rise in circulating blood fats called triglycerides.' Psychology professor Bart Hoebel commented that 'When rats are drinking high-fructose corn syrup at levels well below those in soda pop, they're becoming obese — every single one, across the board. Even when rats are fed a high-fat diet, you don't see this; they don't all gain extra weight.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

High Fructose Corn Syrup Causes Bigger Weight Gain In Rats

Comments Filter:
  • HFC (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 24, 2010 @05:33PM (#31604038)

    That is because HFC is absorbed by the body in the same way that beer and alcohol is. In the liver. HFC also suppresses the satiety (hunger) signal so people tend to eat more.

    • by bunratty ( 545641 ) on Wednesday March 24, 2010 @06:03PM (#31604476)

      All fructose is processed by the liver in the same way as alcohol. That includes fruit juice.

      All this changes in the presence of fiber. If you eat a piece of fresh fruit, the fiber in the fruit changes the way the fructose from the fruit is absorbed so it's not such a huge shock to the liver.

      The bottom line is that if you eat carbohydrates, you should make sure it's with plenty of fiber. In other words, eat pieces of fruit, vegetables, and whole grains, just as nutritionists have been telling us for years. On food labels, I look for a % USRDA of fiber greater than or equal to the % USRDA of carbohydates, or grams of fiber at least 1/10 the grams of carbohydrate. It makes you feel more full with less food and prevents the sugar rush and crash from your liver absorbing the carbs too quickly.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by TubeSteak ( 669689 )

        All fructose is processed by the liver in the same way as alcohol. That includes fruit juice.

        All this changes in the presence of fiber. If you eat a piece of fresh fruit, the fiber in the fruit changes the way the fructose from the fruit is absorbed so it's not such a huge shock to the liver.

        Fruit juice != fruit.
        Drinking a tall glass of orange juice is the equivalent of eating 6~8 oranges, but without the fibers.
        Your liver treats the massive sugar dump much differently than eating the equivalent # of [fruit].

        The FDA wants to toss fruit juices into the same category of "bad" drinks as sugar laden sodas.

        • by Arthur Grumbine ( 1086397 ) on Wednesday March 24, 2010 @09:21PM (#31606250) Journal

          Fruit juice != fruit.
          Drinking a tall glass of orange juice is the equivalent of eating 6~8 oranges, but without the fibers.
          Your liver treats the massive sugar dump much differently than eating the equivalent # of [fruit].

          The FDA wants to toss fruit juices into the same category of "bad" drinks as sugar laden sodas.

          That can't be right! I have it on good authority that drinking 1 oz. of Mona Vie acai berry juice is even healthier than 12 servings of fruits and vegetables. It comes from a super fruit, from the Amazon jungles! In fact, recent studies have shown that just purchasing a case of these stylish bottles may have an immediate positive effect on your interpersonal relationships (with any and all family and friends who have invested in the authorized reseller program). So, I say "Bah!" to your "science". Mona Vie has what plants crave! It's got electrolytes!!

        • by Norwell Bob ( 982405 ) on Thursday March 25, 2010 @09:19AM (#31609516)

          All fructose is processed by the liver in the same way as alcohol. That includes fruit juice.

          All this changes in the presence of fiber. If you eat a piece of fresh fruit, the fiber in the fruit changes the way the fructose from the fruit is absorbed so it's not such a huge shock to the liver.

          Fruit juice != fruit. Drinking a tall glass of orange juice is the equivalent of eating 6~8 oranges, but without the fibers. Your liver treats the massive sugar dump much differently than eating the equivalent # of [fruit].

          The FDA wants to toss fruit juices into the same category of "bad" drinks as sugar laden sodas.

          Exactly true, and yet millions of (nutritionally) uneducated mothers and/or fathers insist that their children drink plenty of juice (most of which is probably only 10% real fruit juice to begin with), instead of soda... because it's "healthy".

          I won't go off on my usual rant about the terrible food pyramid we've been brainwashed with since the 60s ("eat a shitload of bread, but NO FATS!"), but the bigger problem I'm seeing every day is just an utter ignorance about what people put into their body, or an unwillingness to try something different.

          "It says LEAN Cuisine on the box! That means I'll lose weight by eating it."

          My dad taught me something when I was younger, probably without even meaning to... if you can't pronounce all the ingredients, you shouldn't eat it. Of course, as a kid, I ignored that advice and just ate whatever tasted good. My mother did her best, but she grew up in an Italian household, which means a lot of pasta and other starches. When she went back to work, the fridge was filled with microwaveable "food", that I could nuke whenever I thought I was hungry. Guess who was a fat kid who sucked at sports, couldn't keep up with friends when there was running, biking, climbing, or jumping was involved? Guess who grew up to be a fat adult who tried all the same shit (pills, "diet" meals, "magic" exercise apparatus, etc.) as many other fat people, with the same results... still fat.

          It took a combination of a rough period in my life, combined with pure dumb luck... I was really low and, rather than drown myself in booze, I decided that I'd had enough, and that it was time to work on me. I got an email from a major men's magazine, offering a 30-day free trial of a book (which I've shilled on /. before), the title of which appealed to desire to be more of a man than I saw in the mirror at the time. The price of the book was less than a night at the local watering hole, so I went for it. When it arrived, first I thumbed through it. There was a lot of *common sense* stuff in there that just hadn't occurred to me before. So, I went back and READ it. Many an a-ha moment. Then I went back again and applied it. Now, at the risk of sounding like a braggart, I'm one of the most fit guys in the office. People are constantly asking for, and then either disregarding or outright refuting my advice. The result is, they're still fat, and I'm still not.

          Bottom line is, there's no magic pill, there's no silver bullet, there's really no secret. Back in the caveman days, right up to a half century ago, you almost had to try to get fat. Now, the food manufacturers (think about that phrase for a moment) are pumping chemicals into their products to make them taste better, cheaper. When I was a kid, McDonald's was a once-in-a-while treat. Now it's considered by many to be a viable option for all three major meals. People get in their car and drive to the store a block away. Hell, I see parents put their kids in the van and drive TO THE END OF THE DRIVEWAY to wait for the bus. People would rather wait in their car for 20 minutes in the Dunkin' Donuts drive through than park, get out, and be in and out of the place in 2 minutes. Schools have dropped gym class to save money and make more time for standardized tests. My oldest son tells me they don't really

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by GooberToo ( 74388 )

            Guess who grew up to be a fat adult who tried all the same shit (pills, "diet" meals, "magic" exercise apparatus, etc.) as many other fat people, with the same results... still fat.

            I decided to comment rather than moderate. Dieting is a dumb idea thrust upon us by marketing and companies trying to sell us something. Never, ever, never, ever diet. Dieting is for losers. Diet is for marketing sock puppets. There is a huge difference between dieting and a healthy diet. The former is a plan for failure. The later is a plan for a healthy life.

            Here's a reasonable basis to begin a healthy life. This may not be for everyone, but for most, it makes for a good basis to move forward.

            Every (at le

    • Re:HFC (Score:5, Informative)

      by BobPaul ( 710574 ) * on Wednesday March 24, 2010 @07:17PM (#31605240) Journal

      HFCF is fructose and sucrose. Fructose [] is absorbed by the small intestine. Sucrose (table sugar) is broken down in the stomach and small intestine into 1 glucose molecule and 1 fructose molecule, which are then both absorbed by the small intestine. So, either way you get fructose, big deal, right? That's the conventional wisdom.

      But lets look further. If you eat 1 tablespoon of HCFC 55 (equal in sweetness to 1 tablespoon sucrose), you get .55 tablespoons of fructose and .45 tablespoons of sucrose. That sucrose is turned into half fructose and half glucose before entering the bloodstream. So in reality you ate .775 tablespoons of fructose and .225 tablespoons of glucose. This is significantly more fructose than if you had eaten 1 tablespoon of sucrose. And if you're consuming sugar water (as in the study) or lots and lots of soda, you're consuming far more than a tablespoon.

      Of course your claim that it's "absorbed ... in the same way that beer and alcohol is. In the liver" isn't quite correct. They're all absorbed by the small intestine, but it's true they are metabolized by the liver, albeit in completely different ways. What's might be important about the liver, though, is that it's not regulated by insulin. While glucose can be metabolized by any of the bodies cells, insulin regulates blood glucose levels. Fructose is only processed by the liver and is indifferent to insulin levels. So (in a layman's, but more detailed explanation) when you eat that 1 tablespoon of table sugar, you get half a tablespoon of unregulated sugar and half regulated. Eat the HFCF55 and most of the sugar is unregulated.

      As an aside, honey is almost identical in composition to HFCF55, so if you meet any holistics bemoaning HFCF and championing honey, you can tell them to screw off.

      • Re:HFC (Score:5, Interesting)

        by inKubus ( 199753 ) on Wednesday March 24, 2010 @08:35PM (#31605876) Homepage Journal

        HFCS is created with an enzymatic process. The HFCS food companies buy is dirty. It's mostly fructose and glucose but it also contains the enzymes used to convert the corn starch. You can't remove it all, apparently. And the standards are based on very small serving sizes. When people are drinking 50-100g a day of it, this enzyme builds up in the human system and attaches to other starch and performs the same conversion process to sugar. Normally this process takes more energy but with the unnatural enzyme it doesn't, and therefore it causes more efficient breakdown of starch. These people also tend to have a bag of chips or fries with their 50-100g of corn syrup. This means all of that becomes sugar. Since the body can't use the sugar, insulin is released and reactions occur and "bada-bing" FAT.

        See Alpha-amylase [], Glucoamylase [], and Xyloase [].

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by petermgreen ( 876956 )

          Has anyone actually tested this (surely there must be some way to make clean glucose and fructose and compare their impact to commercial HFCS.

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by inKubus ( 199753 )

            Not that I can find. I did find some studies involving HFCS as a food for bees. Apparently there are some other byproducts that are toxic to bees. Unfortunately, HFCS is commonly used as a food for bees to prime them. This article [] has a lot of information and analysis of commercial HFCS. Could this be part of the bee death problem in America? This is something we're going to be hearing about more and more over the next few years unless they can get to the bottom of it. It's not surprising, to me, to

        • Re:HFC (Score:4, Informative)

          by inKubus ( 199753 ) on Thursday March 25, 2010 @01:05AM (#31607368) Homepage Journal

          Here's the federal standards for corn syrup: In General [] and Glucose syrup analytics [].

          You'll see that they only verify a few basic things. There are no standards for the amount of enzymes, pH, other contaminants, etc. Considering it's a 9-step process, there is a lot of room for contaminants to be introduced or not removed. I highly recommend not eating it if you're reading this ;)

    • Re:HFC (Score:4, Interesting)

      by lpq ( 583377 ) on Wednesday March 24, 2010 @10:43PM (#31606744) Homepage Journal

      Yup, and there's all those crap corn advertisements trying to make people believe corn sugar is just the same and just as safe as regular sugar.

      What a load of crapaganda

      Reminds me of all the FUD around Stevia -- not the commercial stuff, but the natural refined crystals from plant. 1 oz = ~ 12.5 lbs of sugar equivalent. Average usage ... .05gram.

      Do youknow how long 1oz of that white powder lasts for sweetening unsweetened breakfast serial eat 2-3 times/day? OR occasionally sweetening of unsweetened koolaid type drinks in place of sugared ones?
      Nearly a year for 1 person -- easily!

      Do you know how much this would save in money and calories for the average person?!?!

      (And it has minor blood pressure lower effects).

      Supposed effects on sperm are unnoticed in any human populations or tests.

  • Queue . . . (Score:4, Insightful)

    by OverlordQ ( 264228 ) on Wednesday March 24, 2010 @05:33PM (#31604042) Journal

    Queue Corn Lobby response in 3 . . . 2. . . . 1 . . . .

    • Re:Queue . . . (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 24, 2010 @05:38PM (#31604106)

      Glad to oblige! This story was posted on Science Daily yesterday. They included the following:

      Editor's Note: In response to the above-mentioned study, The Corn Refiners Association issued a statement titled "Gross Errors in Princeton Animal Study on Obesity and High Fructose Corn Syrup: Research in Humans Discredits Princeton Study" ( This link is provided for information only -- no editorial endorsement is implied.

      • Re:Queue . . . (Score:5, Informative)

        by MBCook ( 132727 ) <> on Wednesday March 24, 2010 @05:54PM (#31604328) Homepage

        Ars Technica [] covered this a few days ago, and their analysis (as opposed to the publicity blurb the university made up) said the study basically came out a wash. Some groups saw gains, some didn't, but there was no clear pattern.

        I'm in the "HFCS should be avoided" camp at the moment, but this study doesn't really prove anything.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      Queue[sic] Corn Lobby response in 3 . . . 2. . . . 1 . . . .

      You think you're being funny, but in the past month or two, the corn-syrup folks have already started running commercials that claim their product is just as good as regular old sugar when used in processed foods.

      High-Fructose Corn Syrup Ad 1 []
      High-Fructose Corn Syrup Ad 2 []
      High-Fructose Corn Syrup Ad 3 []
  • by Pojut ( 1027544 ) on Wednesday March 24, 2010 @05:33PM (#31604044) Homepage

    HFCS is bad, but not NEARLY as bad as Crystalline Fructose, which makes an appearance in beverages like Vitamin Water. Do some google searching on's much harder to break down in your liver than HFCS. [] for some examples.

    • by Mindcontrolled ( 1388007 ) on Wednesday March 24, 2010 @05:44PM (#31604188)
      Sorry, but that blog seems to be a wee bit on the crackpot side of things. The body does not really care how the fructose is administered - when it arrives in the intestine, it is in solution anyway, so no difference whether it comes crystalline or as HFCS. The effect should be the same. The problems that are pointed at in that post are probably true, however. Fructose triggers a lower insulin response than glucose, so the hunger persists despite caloric intake. Also, fructose is metabolized mostly, if not only, in the liver, which causes stress on the organ.

      Usual table sugar - sucrose - is a disaccharide made from one molecule of fructose and one of glucose. The glucose part triggers the insulin production, which signals that you have taken in calories. So, if you use normal sugar instead of HFCS, your body knows that you got energy way faster. That seems to be the main obesity mechanism associated with HFCS.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        I'm curious about what you've said about fructose. During glycolysis, glucose-6-phosphate and fructose-6-phosphate are freely interconverted via glucose-6-phosphate isomerase, and the remainder of the glycolytic cycle takes place using the fructose isomer, converting it into the bisphosphate and proceeding to chop it up and produce NADH and ATP. glycolytic pathway. [] That takes place in every cell in the body that is engaging in aerobic metabolism. As such, I'm not sure how you can say that fructose is on
        • by Mindcontrolled ( 1388007 ) on Wednesday March 24, 2010 @06:16PM (#31604640)
          You are right on the mechanism. However, there is another step. There is a liver-only fructokinase, which has a way higher Km than the hepatic glucokinase - so basically all fructose in the bloodstream is pulled by GLUT2 into the liver and retained there by phosphorylation through the hepatic fructokinase. The glucose also enters the liver via GLUT2, but is phosphorylated way more slowly, so a significant amount is not retained hepatically by the phosphorylation reaction. The additional liver stress and the main metabolic difference results from the fact that the subsequent metabolizing of F6P in the liver is insulin independent.

          Hope that suffices for starters. For more details, I'd have to break out the literature... and I am stressing my own liver with a decent red wine way too much for that at the moment ;)
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 24, 2010 @05:39PM (#31604128)

    Well, that isn't going to matter as long as Iowa and the corn farmers have the political power that they do.

    If there is one good thing about the new "Obamacare" bill, it's that unhealthy things will cost the government money. The downside is they will now have one more reason to regulate.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      Well, would your libertarian streak be OK with just not subsidizing so damn much corn, then?

      (The government already is interfering with the system. It's just making us sick thanks to the economic incentives.)

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by Skim123 ( 3322 )
        Subsidizing corn, soy, wheat, and other high calorie, easily stored and non-perishable foodstuff is responsible government policy. It's a precautionary measure, just like how the government maintains reserves of oil and gas. These reserves are in place to cushion the effects of some catastrophe that would impact our food supply (drought, mass famine, some sort of biological or nuclear incident, etc.). If spinach were high calorie and could be easily stored for years then the government would be subsidizing
  • by Ranger ( 1783 ) on Wednesday March 24, 2010 @05:41PM (#31604144) Homepage
    Problem solved.
  • by Kenja ( 541830 ) on Wednesday March 24, 2010 @05:41PM (#31604150)
    Stop giving our tax money to farmers to over-grow corn and lower the price to the point where corn syrup is cheaper then sugar. Problem solved.

    This would also solve the hemorrhagic ecoli problem in cattle farms by making grass cheaper then corn husks for feed.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 24, 2010 @05:49PM (#31604258)

      Actually, government subsidies that make corn cheaper are only half the problem; they're just making the corn syrup cheap.

      Government price supports for sugar are the other half -- trade barriers that stop us from importing cheap sugar from places like brazil that would love to sell it to us make sugar expensive.

  • by axjms ( 167179 ) on Wednesday March 24, 2010 @05:45PM (#31604204) Homepage covered this same study the other day. Their writeup is better than mine would be so why don't you read their article? []

    The abridged version of the abridged version is that this study does not conclusively prove much of anything.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by sarkeizen ( 106737 )
      I'm more in the "let's all get our caloric intake to a reasonable level before we start bothering with this kind of diatary micromanagement" camp.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        That's great, and avoiding HFCS helps toward that goal (apparently) - HFCS blocks you from feeling full, so you eat more. If that's true and is really a big effect, then all that would be required to get caloric intakes to a reasonable level would be removing HFCS.

        That's no longer micromanagement, but a single large change that could (partially) solve the overlying issue, which is consuming too many calories as you say.

        Obesity is a bigger problem in the US than in most other places, and the US is also the p

  • by guspasho ( 941623 ) on Wednesday March 24, 2010 @05:46PM (#31604224)

    What, no "correlation is not causation" tag? I thought this was Slashdot's response to question the validity of any and all scientific research reported here.

  • by ftobin ( 48814 ) * on Wednesday March 24, 2010 @05:49PM (#31604252) Homepage

    Gatorade in the past has had high fructose corn syrup, but over the past several months have begun phasing in a sucrose/dextrose blend. I've actually begun switching from Powerade to Gatorade because of this, even though it's 15% or so more expensive.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 24, 2010 @06:02PM (#31604456)

      Gatorade used to not use HFCS a few years ago. I noticed when they switched to using HCFS and contacted their customer relations department. Here's the response I got from Gatorade:

        Subject: RE: Gatorade Thirst Quencher , REF.# 026139934A
        Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 12:58:35 -0500

        RE: Gatorade Thirst Quencher , REF.# 026139934A


        Thank you for contacting us about the High Fructose Corn Syrup
        (glucose-fructose syrup) in Gatorade Thirst Quencher. The important
        thing to know is that our formula has not changed. Gatorade contains
        the same scientifically proven blend of three carbohydrates -
        glucose, sucrose and fructose - in specific ratios.

        The glucose and fructose in Gatorade are essential functional
        ingredients required for rapid fluid absorption (an important
        component of hydration) and effective energy delivery. High-fructose
        corn syrup is glucose and fructose, and the body handles these sugars
        in the same way it handles the glucose and fructose provided by

        By way of background, carbohydrate sources do not contain only one
        type of sugar. For instance, table sugar (sucrose) is actually about
        50% glucose and 50% fructose.

        In the US, the term "High Fructose Corn Syrup" applies to both HFCS
        55 which is used in virtually all soft drinks (55% fructose with the
        remainder primarily glucose), and HFCS 42 used in Gatorade (42%
        fructose and the remainder primarily glucose.) In formulating
        Gatorade we use the HFCS 42 together with sucrose to create a blend
        that is appropriately sweet to encourage drinking, contains glucose
        for immediate use by the body, and yet does not contain too much
        fructose which, in large quantities, can cause intestinal distress.

        For weight maintenance, nutritionists agree that a sugar is a sugar
        and that it doesn't matter what your sugar source is. It just
        matters how much you consume. Many experts agree that HFCS has been
        unfairly demonized as a culprit in the obesity epidemic with no
        credible body of scientific research to support this notion.

        The Gatorade formula is continually tested by research scientists
        around the globe and proven on the world's best playing fields. We
        conduct ongoing research through the Gatorade Sports Science
        Institute to explore ways in which we can continue to deliver the
        best products, with the most effective ingredients, to our consumers.

        We hope this information helps you to make a more informed decision,

        Gatorade Consumer Response

        Original Message:

        Hi. I just wanted to let you know that I am very disappointed in your
        Gatorade product since you started using high-fructose corn syrup as
        one of the ingredients.I used to specifically buy Gatorade rather
        than Powerade because of the fact that the later always contained
        HFCS. But now I will be avoiding both products.
        Bert R

    • water switching... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by city ( 1189205 ) on Wednesday March 24, 2010 @06:47PM (#31604944)
      Really you're going to split hairs on this? Are you a long distance runner? I'm guessing no, so just drink water. It's really not that hard to just jump cold turkey and drink water all the time. It's free and there's no sugar or chemicals.
  • by R.Mo_Robert ( 737913 ) on Wednesday March 24, 2010 @05:52PM (#31604296)

    Does anybody know of research that compares this to regular corn syrup (i.e., that which has not been "treated" to convert some of the glucose into fructose to bring the sweetness to table-sugar levels)? I'm just curious if it's corn syrup in general or if there's something peculiar to HFCS.

    In any case, I think people need to realize that neither table sugar nor HFCS is "good"--they're both concentrations of sweetness far greater than those found anywhere in nature, and they are purely empty Calories. Avoid them both and eat whole foods as much as you can--and, of course, get some exercise. (If only you could put that into the US healthcare bill!)

  • by StefanJ ( 88986 ) on Wednesday March 24, 2010 @06:02PM (#31604458) Homepage Journal

    . . . that nature INTENDED you to drink.


  • by Jodka ( 520060 ) on Wednesday March 24, 2010 @06:03PM (#31604472)

    Cane sugar is far more efficient to produce than corn sweetener but is primarily produced in tropical and subtropical regions outside of the United States . The agribusiness lobby in in the United States pays off politicians to restrict imports, driving up the price of sugar within the the U.S. to above that of corn syrup. Without import restrictions on sugar, all those products you buy which are sweetened with corn syrup would be sweetened with sugar instead. And cost less.

    You can blame the agribusiness lobby and the protectionist whores in the U.S. congress for this situation. It is a clear-cut case of government power expended to benefit he corrupt few at the expense of the many.

  • by RobDude ( 1123541 ) on Wednesday March 24, 2010 @06:23PM (#31604716) Homepage

    That, from now on, posting that crap about 'Calories in vs. Calories out' is an offense punishable by death.

    I've got a list of medical studies that show *what* you eat has a dramatic affect on your body composition; even when the calories are the same.

    And yet - I still hear it....all the time....'Calories in vs. Calories out'.

  • ketosis []

    yes, its sort of the atkins diet, or the caveman diet: its how our caveman ancestors spent pretty much their entire lives, its what our biochemistry is idealized for, pre-agricultural revolution

    all it means is you eat fat and protein, and no carbohydrates. the pounds melt right off

    it forces your body to manufacture ketones from fat, and use that to power the krebs cycle (where you get your energy from), and to go into gluconogenesis (sugar from proteins)

    eat ALL YOU WANT: eggs and bacon, butter on everything, fish, chicken, cheese, nuts. eat fistfuls of macadamia nuts all day. even hard liquor (no sugar). but absolutely NO sugar or carbs, no rice, no bread, no milk, nothing sweet or starchy at all, period

    you won't be hungry, but the monotony of the diet will leave you hating fat and protein, and just the thought of popcorn will turn you into a craven vampire

    so what you do is carb cycle: you give yourself a break, say on weekends, where you get to pig out on sweets. trust me: ketosis during the week will more than make up for your indulging on weekends. it will also take you out of danger from the vague stresses you are putting on your body (see negatives below)

    funny thing: i felt more lethargic, but slept with less quality, when eating carbs again. this diet, for whatever its worth, really makes you realize that high carb diets are not what homo sapiens is optimized for. our biochemistry has not yet caught up with our recent (evolutionarily speaking) agricultural revolution

    i also have tinnitus, and i noticed that without sugar, the ringing in my ears was lessened, then, when i ate sugar, it came roaring back. they also use the ketosis diet to control people prone to seizures, so high ketones and no sugar seems to have a neurological impact. i would be interested in a study showing if the kind of inflammation which is alzheimer's is due to high carb diets: that's wild ass speculation on my part. i did read of a woman who put her alzheimer's husband on a ketosis diet of palm oil, and his symptoms got better (google it). again: THIS IS WILD ASS CONJECTURE, but a potentially interesting line of thought, the connection between carbs and inflammation in various disease systems

    drink tons of coffee, it seems to help with hunger. but it has to be BLACK: no sugar, no milk. also drink a lot of pepsi max/ coke zero: the sweetener in those is actually a tiny protein. drink gallons of the stuff, it will fill your stomach

    important: get your vitamins. since you're not getting many veggies (low carb veggies like broccoli and lettuce is pretty much ok, but you're missing out on wonderful foods like blueberries with this diet), you need supplements


    ketosis makes your blood slightly acidic (its not ketoacidosis, that's far worse, like with anorexics, who don't eat at all), which means you will be leaching calcium and magnesium, and stressing your kidneys and weakening your bones (this is all happening on a minor basis, relax). take calcium citrate supplements. paradoxically, eating more calcium will help you avoid kidney stones (the most common kind of kidney stone is caused by oxalate, and calcium inhibits oxalate absorption from the intestines), and the citrate helps in ketosis for... some reason i forgot. potassium and magnesium citrate supplements are good to, i forgot exactly why

    your breath will stink: you're exhaling acetone through your lungs while in ketosis. but remember, chicks don't like fat guys, and your diet is not permanent, so just avoid breathing on chicks for awhile while on your diet

    if these negatives scare you, think about the diabetes and heart disease you are giving yourself with your carb addiction: far more dangerous than a temporary diet which will make you a healthy weight

  • by harlows_monkeys ( 106428 ) on Wednesday March 24, 2010 @08:06PM (#31605672) Homepage
    The data in the actual paper [] doesn't support the conclusion in the title of the Slashdot story.

I came, I saw, I deleted all your files.