Liz & Glyn Wainwright

Novelist & Scriptwriter shares with a Scientist & Researcher

Liz & Glyn Wainwright

Author Archives: Glyn and Liz

Unknown's avatar

About Glyn and Liz

Writer Liz wainwright and Independent Researcher Glyn Wainwright

Link

When the British physiologist John Yudkin published Pure, White and Deadly—his 1972 book linking heart disease to sugar consumption—he met strong opposition from the sugar industry. As Geoff Watts writes in this week’s BMJ (doi:10.1136/bmj.e7800), “jobs and research grants that might predictably have come Yudkin’s way did not materialise.” Attacks also included the abrupt cancellation of conferences suspected of promulgating anti-sugar findings, and the book was dismissed as a work of fiction. Enter fat in the role of chief culprit in the rise in heart disease. The fat hypothesis, the chief proponent of which was the American biologist Ancel Keys, influenced policy makers and captured the popular imagination. Meanwhile, writes Watts, medical interest in the sugar hypothesis faded. Yudkin’s book fell out of print and low fat became the buzz phrase in nutrition.

image

But in recent years, and with rising obesity becoming one of the main health concerns in the developed world, the sugar hypothesis has started to regain momentum. Recent anti-sugar initiatives include New York city’s restriction on the size of fizzy drinks (BMJ 2012;345:e6768). At the end of last year Penguin Books reissued Pure, White and Deadly, with a new and enthusiastic introduction by US endocrinologist Robert Lustig, which in this week’s BMJ Jack Winkler hails as a medical classic (doi:10.1136/bmj.e8612). And, as if to forestall any further policy initiatives against sugary beverages, this week Coca-Cola launched a television advertisement in the United States acknowledging the obesity problem and attempting to defend the company’s record in producing low calorie drinks.

How science is going sour on sugar – BMJ

Link

At last we are getting some movement on Cholesterol’s innocence and sugar’s guilt

BMJ 2013;346:e7800

BMJ – “Sugar and the heart: old ideas revisited”

Link

From issue 2899 of New Scientist magazine, page 30-34.

Far from being passive hangers-on, symbiotic microbes may shape the evolution of the plants and animals that play host to them

DISPOSING of corpses can be tricky. Bury them in a shallow grave and hungry animals are liable to dig them up. Our body faces a somewhat similar problem when it comes to disposing of unwanted substances. One of the ways the liver purifies blood is by adding the equivalent of a “chuck this out” label to molecules, but this label is made of a kind of sugar – and the bugs in our gut have a sweet tooth. Some produce a special enzyme that allows them to cut off the sugar and eat it, which often results in compounds being recycled within the body rather than disposed of.

Back in the 1980s, Richard Jefferson used the enzyme to develop a powerful technique now relied upon by thousands of genetic engineers around the world. At the same time, he was intrigued by the enzyme’s normal role. Its recycling effect helps determine the blood levels of many compounds, including important substances such as sex hormones. Jefferson realised that the bacteria within us, far from being passive hangers-on, must affect us in profound ways.

In the past decade, this view has started to become mainstream. Study after study has shown how the microbes living in us and on us – the microbiome – can affect our health and even happiness. But back in the 1980s, Jefferson took this idea even further. If microbes are so important, he reasoned, they must play a big role in evolution too. He came up with what he called the hologenome theory of evolution. “The hologenome is the biggest breakthrough in thinking I’ve had in my life,” he says.

image

Symbiotic Microbes may shape our evolution!

Link

Tom Naughton’s blog makes some interesting observations about the USDA announcement:

A new report from the USDA says Americans are eating less fat than we did 30 years ago.  Here’s the opening from an online article about the report:

On average, Americans are eating 10g less fat per day today than they were in the late 1970s, according to new research.  In a report comparing food consumption patterns in 1977-78 versus 2005-2008, Biing-Hwan Lin and Joanne Guthrie from USDA’s Economic Research Service found that on average, Americans consumed 75.2g of fat in 2005-08 compared with 85.6g in 1977-78.

Meanwhile, the percentage of total calories derived from fat also declined substantially from 39.7% to 33.4% between 1977 and 2008, said the authors.

Hallelujah!  Now that USDA itself is admitting we’re eating less fat, surely they’ll finally also admit that the rise we’ve seen in obesity and metabolic syndrome in the past 30 years can’t be blamed on fat.  I can just hear the press conference where they announce they’re allowing whole milk back in schools …

Tom

USDA Report: We Eat Less Fat, But Fat Is Killing Us?

Link

Zoe raises some very important conflict of interest issues that are seeping into our medical charities

The British Heart Foundation (BHF) describes itself as “a charity that aims to prevent people dying from heart diseases”. Until now, the BHF has remained relatively conflict free – a paragon of virtue in fact when compared with some other ‘heart charities’. Heart UK, for example, calls itself the cholesterol charity (cholesterol should have a charity for having become endangered, but that’s not what they mean!) Heart UK partners with drug companies, the very companies that profit beyond wild dreams from the lucrative war on this life vital substance, as their partner list confirms.

I receive a copy of the BHF magazine, which comes out six times a year. It is called “Heart Matters” and should be commended for having no adverts. It should also be completely ignored because the high carb/low fat/fear cholesterol advice is doing serious harm. However, at least the BHF has appeared free from conflict – until now…

Zoe

The British Heart Foundation & Flora pro.activ – Conflict of Interest?

Link

Fructose Has Different Effect Than Glucose On Brain Regions That Regulate Appetite

Jan. 1, 2013 — In a study examining possible factors regarding the associations between fructose consumption and weight gain, brain magnetic resonance imaging of study participants indicated that ingestion of glucose but not fructose reduced cerebral blood flow and activity in brain regions that regulate appetite, and ingestion of glucose but not fructose produced increased ratings of satiety and fullness, according to a preliminary study published in the January 2 issue of JAMA.

JAMA and Archives Journals (2013, January 1). Fructose has different effect than glucose on brain regions that regulate appetite.

Fructose Has Different Effect Than Glucose On Brain Regions That Regulate Appetite

Link

The Journal of the American Medical Association has published evidence supports what many of us (inspired by Robert Lustig et al) have been commenting on – The connection between Fructose and Obesity. This parallels our own review of Fructose published in 2010.

Effects of Fructose vs Glucose on Regional Cerebral Blood Flow in Brain Regions Involved With Appetite and Reward Pathways

Kathleen A. Page, MD; Owen Chan, PhD; Jagriti Arora, MS; Renata Belfort-DeAguiar, MD, PhD; James Dzuira, PhD; Brian Roehmholdt, MD, PhD; Gary W. Cline, PhD; Sarita Naik, MD; Rajita Sinha, PhD; R. Todd Constable, PhD; Robert S. Sherwin, MD
JAMA. 2013;309(1):63-70. doi:10.1001/jama.2012.116975

Importance  Increases in fructose consumption have paralleled the increasing prevalence of obesity, and high-fructose diets are thought to promote weight gain and insulin resistance. Fructose ingestion produces smaller increases in circulating satiety hormones compared with glucose ingestion, and central administration of fructose provokes feeding in rodents, whereas centrally administered glucose promotes satiety.

Objective  To study neurophysiological factors that might underlie associations between fructose consumption and weight gain.

Design, Setting, and Participants  Twenty healthy adult volunteers underwent 2 magnetic resonance imaging sessions at Yale University in conjunction with fructose or glucose drink ingestion in a blinded, random-order, crossover design.

Main Outcome Measures  Relative changes in hypothalamic regional cerebral blood flow (CBF) after glucose or fructose ingestion. Secondary outcomes included whole-brain analyses to explore regional CBF changes, functional connectivity analysis to investigate correlations between the hypothalamus and other brain region responses, and hormone responses to fructose and glucose ingestion.

Results  There was a significantly greater reduction in hypothalamic CBF after glucose vs fructose ingestion (−5.45 vs 2.84 mL/g per minute, respectively; mean difference, 8.3 mL/g per minute [95% CI of mean difference, 1.87-14.70]; P = .01). Glucose ingestion (compared with baseline) increased functional connectivity between the hypothalamus and the thalamus and striatum. Fructose increased connectivity between the hypothalamus and thalamus but not the striatum. Regional CBF within the hypothalamus, thalamus, insula, anterior cingulate, and striatum (appetite and reward regions) was reduced after glucose ingestion compared with baseline (P < .05 significance threshold, family-wise error [FWE] whole-brain corrected). In contrast, fructose reduced regional CBF in the thalamus, hippocampus, posterior cingulate cortex, fusiform, and visual cortex (P < .05 significance threshold, FWE whole-brain corrected). In whole-brain voxel-level analyses, there were no significant differences between direct comparisons of fructose vs glucose sessions following correction for multiple comparisons. Fructose vs glucose ingestion resulted in lower peak levels of serum glucose (mean difference, 41.0 mg/dL [95% CI, 27.7-54.5]; P < .001), insulin (mean difference, 49.6 μU/mL [95% CI, 38.2-61.1]; P < .001), and glucagon-like polypeptide 1 (mean difference, 2.1 pmol/L [95% CI, 0.9-3.2]; P = .01).

Conclusion and Relevance  In a series of exploratory analyses, consumption of fructose compared with glucose resulted in a distinct pattern of regional CBF and a smaller increase in systemic glucose, insulin, and glucagon-like polypeptide 1 levels.

Fructose & Obesity – JAMA Report

Link

Yet more revelations about the importance of cell membrane cholesterol.

The medical profession will have to admit the anti-cholesterol stance was a massive mistake (it’s another scandal in the making).  All cellular excretions use cholesterol rich rafts and cholesterol lipids to wrap and release products and message molecules.

When we block cholesterol production we shut down or cells – oops!

Cholesterol is known to modulate the physical properties of cell membranes, but its direct involvement in cellular signaling has not been thoroughly investigated. Here we show that cholesterol specifically binds many PDZ domains found in scaffold proteins, including the N-terminal PDZ domain of NHERF1/EBP50. This modular domain has a cholesterol-binding site topologically distinct from its canonical protein-binding site and serves as a dual-specificity
domain that bridges the membrane and juxta-membrane signaling complexes. Disruption of the cholesterol-binding activity of NHERF1 largely abrogates its dynamic co-localization with and activation of cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator, one of its binding partners in the plasma membrane of mammalian cells. At least seven more PDZ domains from other scaffold proteins also bind cholesterol and have cholesterol-binding sites, suggesting that cholesterol modulates cell signaling through direct interactions with
these scaffold proteins. This mechanism may provide an alternative explanation for the formation of signaling platforms in cholesterol-rich membrane domains.

Cholesterol Molecule

Cholesterol – vitally important in Cell Signaling

Link

A note to Dr Briffa from a T2 diabetic

I had my 6 monthly diabetes check-up last Wednesday. The diabetes consultant was really happy with all of my figures on cholesterol, triglycerides, blood pressure, weight (I’ve lost another 4 kg since February without really trying), kidney and liver function are excellent – in fact he was really impressed and asked me what I was doing to get these improvements.

Simple, I said, I’ve stopped eating wheat in all its forms and grains in general, I avoid rice and all potato products. I eat animal fat and the only oil that I use is extra virgin olive oil. Breakfast is typically a one-egg omelette and with a small amount of bacon, smoked salmon or Parma ham. I have spinach or other leafy greens and tomatoes. Lunch is often not taken as I do not feel hungry until 6.00 pm when I have my evening meal. Another small portion of meat and plenty of veggies. The only fruit that I have are a few blueberries, wild strawberries (when they are available) and raspberries – and I mean a few.

I sleep better than ever, don’t feel tired and have lost weight. I really ought to exercise though, that is the only flaw in my regime.

“No, you MUST eat some carbohydrates” he said.

“I do, I told you, I eat plenty of vegetables.” I said.

“No, no, starchy carbohydrates, you NEED them”

“Why do I NEED them?”

“For energy, your body needs carbohydrates for energy” came his concerned reply.

“How do you think that I’ve managed to survive since you last saw me then? And, you told me how pleased you were with all of my readings – doesn’t that suggest that I’m doing fine without refined, starchy carbohydrates?”

He had no reply other than to repeat to me that I MUST eat carbohydrates for energy.

I urged him to read Primal Body, Primal Mind by Nora T Gedgaudas and made him write it down. I could see that he wasn’t convinced. So, I told him that the bullshit that he’d been taught by the food industry-research funded nonsense that the Government taught him is causing all of the major health problems that he has to deal with every day.

I also said that I throw a fat-fuelled log onto the fire in the morning rather than the carbohydrate kindling throughout the day to keep me provided with energy and avoid the feeling of hunger. Again, nothing seemed to penetrate that simple head of his; it was full of the guff that he’d been taught not to question.

Diabetic transforms his health with a low-carb diet, BUT his doctor urges him to eat more carbs