Sugar kills worms (prematurely)
Taka
ScienceDaily (Nov. 5, 2009) — If worms are any indication, all the
sugar in your diet could spell much more than obesity and type 2
diabetes. Researchers reporting in the November issue of Cell
Metabolism, a Cell Press publication, say it might also be taking
years off your life.
By adding just a small amount of glucose to C. elegans usual fare of
straight bacteria, they found the worms lose about 20 percent of their
usual life span. They trace the effect to insulin signals, which can
block other life-extending molecular players.
Although the findings are in worms, Cynthia Kenyon of the University
of California, San Francisco, says there are known to be many
similarities between worms and people in the insulin signaling
pathways. (As an aside, Kenyon says she read up on low-carb diets and
changed her eating habits immediately -- cutting out essentially all
starches and desserts -- after making the initial discovery in worms.
The discovery was made several years ago, but had not been reported in
a peer-reviewed journal until now.)
"In the early 90s, we discovered mutations that could double the
normal life span of worms," Kenyon said. Those mutations effected
insulin signals. Specifically, a mutation in a gene known as daf-2
slowed aging and doubled life span. That longer life depended on
another "FOXO transcription factor" called DAF-16 and the heat shock
factor HSF-1.
Now, the researchers show that those same players are also involved in
numbering the days of worms who are fed on glucose. In fact, glucose
makes no difference to the life span of worms that lack DAF-16 or
HSF-1, they show. Glucose also completely prevents the life-extending
benefits that would otherwise come with mutations in the daf-2 gene.
Ultimately, worms fed a steady diet containing glucose show a
reduction in aquaporin channels that transport glycerol, one of the
ingredients in the process by which the body produces its own glucose.
"If there is not enough glucose, the body makes it with glycerol,"
Kenyon explained. That glycerol has to first get where it needs to go,
which it does via the aquaporin channels.
Further studies are needed to see if these same effects of sugar can
be seen in mice, or even people. But there is reason to think they
may.
"Although we do not fully understand the mechanism by which glucose
shortens the life span of C. elegans, the fact that the two mammalian
aquaporin glycerol-transporting channels are downregulated by insulin
raises the possibility that glucose may have a life-span-shortening
effect in humans, and, conversely, that a diet with a low glycemic
index may extend human life span," the researchers write. Kenyon also
points to recent studies that have linked particular FOXO variants to
longevity in several human populations, making the pathway the first
with clear effects on human aging.
She says the findings may also have implications for drugs now in
development for the treatment of diabetes, which are meant to block
glucose production by inhibiting glycerol channels. The new findings
"raise a flag" that glycerol channels might be doing something else,
she says, and that drugs designed to block them might have a downside.
---------------------
Apparently this lady is a celiac like the other "successful" low-
carbers out there ... The following 2 blogs are more useful for me
than her babbling about the worms:
http://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.com/
http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/
Cake made of real butter and cream is quite different from that made
of the vegetable oil substitutes.
Taka
montygraham
humans). I know of several people who have lived to advanced ages (or
are still alive!) with diets rich in glucose. I saw my glucose level
"improve" on my sugar-rich diet (it was borderline high on my old
vegan diet), and I'm the only one in my family who is not overweight.
Don't most people know at least a few people who are really old and
eat a lot of glucose? The fact that they don't realize that their
idea has been refuted by basic observations that just about anyone can
perceive doesn't speak very highly of their ability to assess
scientific evidence. They state that these organisms eat bacteria, so
the idea that this is a good model for humans is beyond laughable.
They also do not mention other research that is not consistent with
their views. This reminds me of the kinds of ridiculous ideas that
freshman undergrads cook up (perhaps while "under the influence"),
because they simply "don't know any better."
Zrupfter
> They are making an extraordinary claim (if it is to be applied to
> humans). I know of several people who have lived to advanced
--
Everyone knows heavy smokers who reached a ripe old age too.
That doesn't mean that smoking does not promote many chronic
diseases. Simple sugar intake does not kill you overnight either,
but it still leads to many chronic medical conditions when abused
over time.
You may have genes in your favor to delay some of them, but
sooner or later your lifestyle (excess fat or sugar) will catch up
to you and be your downfall.
Unfortunately, if junk food doesn't get you, something else will,
so from a philosophical perspective, your final destiny will be the
same regardless of your lifestyle.
Getting there however will on average be less of a medical burden
for many of those who treated their bodies with more respect.
montygraham
great deal of time on this issue, and I have found nothing that stands
up to scrutiny, unless you do the studies in a way that is not
consistent with the scientific method. Have you read "Diet and
Health" by the National Research Council from cover to cover? I have,
and that's just a small amount of the research I've done. Also, the
smoker point is irrelevant because they are making an extraordinary
claim, while not following it up with the logical next step, which is
to advise that people just eat bacteria and nothing else. This is
just plain laughable, and it would be a real disgrace to "nutritional
science" if there weren't so many other examples of this sort of
absolute nonsense.
Taka
Looks like he is a good opportunist taking advantage of the uninformed
and uneducated people angered at the present social system. Once he
cited Ray Peat to sell his coconut oil or Brian Peskin to promote the
plant linoleic/linolenic acids but on the other hand he heavily
advertises and sells the long chain Omega-3 PUFAs like fish and krill
oils (which both Peat and Pesking are strongly against).
The problem with today's biological sciences is that due to the IT
revolution there is great overproduction of scientific data and their
misinterpretation is spreading like a religion. The bottleneck in
science is not the amount of experimental data or publications cranked
out but the human brain's ability to interpret them correctly. Most
of the experts don't understand their own findings and act like dogs
chasing their own tails. They are better experts at fabricating the
health advice. No one stands up because it is risky to be a
whistleblower in the academic world. To ignore criticism is the most
effective way to maintain a false idea ...
Taka
"The brighter the stupid burns, the more chance that someone will see
the light."