Glucose appears to temper brain activity in regions that regulate appetite and reward — but fructose does not, researchers found.
In a brain imaging study, participants who had a drink sweetened with glucose had significant reductions in cerebral blood flow in the hypothalamus, while those who drank a fructose-sweetened drink saw a slight increase in activity (P=0.01), Robert Sherwin, MD, of Yale University, and colleagues reported in the Jan. 2 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association.
Glucose also reduced activation in the insula and striatum, other brain regions that regulate appetite, motivation, and reward processing, while fructose did not, the researchers wrote.
In an accompanying editorial, Jonathan Purnell, MD, and Damien Fair, PhD, of Oregon Health & Science University in Portland, said the findings “support the conceptual framework that when the human brain is exposed to fructose, neurobiological pathways involved in appetite regulation are modulated, thereby promoting increased food intake.”
As the obesity epidemic has grown, so too has consumption of fructose in the American diet, the researchers explained in their article. Fructose is found in both sucrose, or table sugar, and in high-fructose corn syrup, another common sweetener. It is valued because it’s sweeter than glucose.
But studies show fructose may have different metabolic effects than glucose. For instance, fructose only weakly stimulates secretion of insulin, a hormone that can increase satiety, and attenuates levels of the satiety hormone glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) — so researchers are concerned that it could possibly increase food-seeking behavior and intake.
To assess those effects, Sherwin and colleagues conducted functional MRIs (fMRIs) in 20 normal-weight, healthy adults who were given 75 grams of either glucose or fructose in a cherry-flavored drink, and then crossed over to a drink with the other sweetener.
Participants rated their feelings of hunger, satiety, and fullness before and after the scan, and the researchers took blood to assess circulating hormone levels.
Overall, the researchers found that glucose significantly reduced cerebral blood flow in the hypothalamus, while fructose did not.
Specifically, blood flow fell 5.45 mL/g per minute from baseline with glucose, compared with an increase of 2.84 mL/g per minute with fructose, for a mean difference of 8.3 ml/g per minute, they reported (P=0.01).
They also found that glucose reduced cerebral blood flow in the thalamus, insula, anterior cingulate, and striatum — “regions that act in concert to ‘read’ the metabolic state of an individual and drive motivation and reward” — compared with baseline (P<0.05).
In contrast, fructose reduced blood flow in the hippocampus, posterior cingulate cortex, fusiform, and visual cortex — but also in the thalamus (P<0.05).
In terms of connectivity between brain regions, glucose upped the links between the hypothalamus and the thalamus and striatum, while fructose only increased connectivity between the hypothalamus and thalamus, but not the striatum — the latter of which also de-activates once a person is sated, the researchers said.
“These findings suggest that ingestion of glucose, but not fructose, initiates a coordinated response between the homeostatic-striatal network that regulates feeding behavior,” they wrote.
They also found that glucose, but not fructose, had effects on circulating “hunger” hormone levels. Glucose elevated levels of insulin and GLP-1 compared with fructose (P<0.001 and P=0.01, respectively).
Leptin and ghrelin levels, however, weren’t significantly different between the two sugars, the researchers found.
The differences in brain effects between glucose and fructose also appeared to coordinate with ratings of hunger, since there was a significant difference from baseline in terms of fullness and satiety when participants drank glucose, but not fructose (P=0.005 and P=0.03, respectively).
Sherwin and colleagues cautioned that the study was limited because fMRI doesn’t provide a direct measure of neuronal activity, and thus any clinical implications can’t yet be determined.
Editorialists Purnell and Fair noted that while some researchers and clinicians warn that the total amount of calories is more important than the type of food when it comes to losing weight, the “reality … is that hunger and fullness are major determinants of how much humans eat, just as thirst determines how much humans drink. These sensations cannot simply be willed away or ignored.”
“The remedy remains eating less,” they wrote, “but the means involve reducing the food element, if possible.”
By Kristina Fiore, Staff Writer, MedPage Today
YOu couldn’t make it up could you? It transpires that the Pan-American arm of the WHO has been asking the food industry for its advise it tackling obesity…well seems there won’t be any attempt to regulate fizzy drinks then. Coca-Cola, Nestle and Unilever have also bribed sorry donated large amounts of cash to the organisation. Apparently this is a “new ay of doing business”. I suggest this is one of the oldest ways of doing business, i.e. bribe the regulator!
I’ll be taking a look at this programme tonight (14th June) at 9pm on BBC2 – The Men Who Made Us Fat. If you can’t watch it tonight be sure to see it on iplayer. It looks like it is concentrating on the real reason we are becoming overweight and obese – the ubiquitous evil substance that is high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS).
The programme blurb mentions the endocrinologist Robert Lustig who was one of the first to notice the dangers of HFCS but was unsurprisingly ignored. If you cannot wait till for tonight’s programme or want to see Prof. Lustig in action telling you how it is (with humour) it’s a great watch especially like the Coca-Cola Conspiracy bit (about 11 mins in). Check it out below. Also it’s worth exploring the rest of UCTV for great lectures on a variety of subject areas.
The other day I came across a BBC article about Coca-Cola and Pepsi changing their recipe to reduce one of its ingredients as it is classed as a carcinogen (cancer causing) which sort of sounds good but it seems it’s just so it doesn’t have to list it as a carcinogen on the label…read about it here. It also reminded me about the contraversy regarding the use of artificial sweeteners in our drinks and foods, notably Aspartame. So I visited the Coca Cola website to se what they had to say about this. After a few minutes trying to get to the right area I came across a Q & A section on artificial sweeteners where the following is stated under the heading:
Misperception: Use of low- and no-calorie sweeteners increases the risk of negative health effects
“There is no scientific evidence that foods with low- and no-calorie sweeteners increase the risk of other diseases or health concerns. There is an exception for individuals born with a rare hereditary disease called phenylketonuria (PKU), which prevents them from breaking down one of the amino acids found in aspartame. Therefore, foods and drinks that are sweetened with aspartame must include a warning statement to keep individuals with this disease from unknowingly using this sweetener.”
Which all sounds hunkey dory. However, just searching on a health newsletter I subscribe to and wholly recommend – WDDTY (What Doctors Don’t Tell You) I found the following article which highly concerned me with regards to Aspartame. To read the full article you’ll need to register (it’s free and well worth it). In this article Dr Erik Millstone (Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex) “…maintains that aspartame was accepted in the UK on the basis of animal tests which weren’t properly conducted. According to his evidence, the 15 pivotal studies leading to aspartame approval both in the US and the UK had serious flaws or demonstrated risk.” The article also highlights many studies into the safety (or lack of) of Aspartame. In another article Dr Millstone looks into the increase rates of brain cancers following the introduction of Aspartame to the market. Find the article here. In this article he also questions whether anyone apart from diabetics need artificial sweeteners as the increased use of sweeteners hasn’t seen the same decrease in sugar consumption. Furthermore, he believes that using such artificial sweeteners as a diet aid as they “…are at best ineffective and at worst counter-productive.”