http://12angrymen.wordpress.com/2008/07/01/obsfucation-with-high-fructose-corn-syrup/

It looks like this guy’s quoting from a textbook or something;

Quote;
—————————————————————————
Hepatic fructose metabolism: A highly lipogenic pathway. Fructose is readily absorbed from the diet and rapidly metabolized principally in the liver. Fructose can provide carbon atoms for both the glycerol and the acyl portions of triglyceride. Fructose is thus a highly efficient inducer of de novo lipogenesis. High concentrations of fructose can serve as a relatively unregulated source of acetyl CoA. In contrast to glucose, dietary fructose does NOT stimulate insulin or leptin (which are both important regulators of energy intake and body adiposity). Stimulated triglyceride synthesis is likely to lead to hepatic accumulation of triglyceride, which has been shown to reduce hepatic insulin sensitivity, as well as increased formation of VLDL particles due to higher substrate availability, increased apoB stability, and higher MTP, the critical factor in VLDL assembly.
———————————————————————–

In light of what Taubes was saying about beer and weight gain, I found this line particularly interesting;
———————————————————————–
High concentrations of fructose can serve as a relatively unregulated source of acetyl CoA.
———————————————————————–

Alcohol, just like fructose, also serves to markedly increase production of acetyl CoA. And alcohol and fructose both cause fatty liver disease. And beer, containing both alcohol and starch, might be a pretty good proxy then for table sugar, containing both fructose and glucose, no? The alcohol or fructose are available for fat production from acetyl CoA, and the starch and glucose cause the insulin spike to drive that fat home.

Taubes wrote about some traditional societies that had rites of passage involving weight gain. I think I remember milk and grains being involved, and not sugar. And I can personally attest that bread, in a low sugar diet, is fattening!

Sure, they are young, however, there are many young people that eat the same way as they do, but also add large amounts of sugar to their diet – and the result is sometimes (not always – good genes, perhaps?) too much weight gain, and sometimes even diabetes develops at a young age.

The other thing is our sons don’t eat too frequently. They eat two meals a day, typically, and, therefore, less insulin is produced, right?

I think sugar and high fructose corn syrup are probably more dangerous than the starches, however, they are probably worst in combination with starches. The starches that are the least offensive, I think, are starchy veggies. These days the boys say I have a carb conscience. I don’t like having white flour or sugar, but I will have starchy veggies from time to time. When I indulge in the former, my carb conscience gives me trouble.

Certainly, when our metabolisms have a problem (mine, unfortunately from sugar soda abuse in my youth and also a low thyroid disease, Hashi’s) with carbohydrates, the cure is to go easy on those.

Just my opinions – and I’m sure because everybody is so very different, this hypothesis may not hold true for everybody. In fact, it might have a lot more to do with genes; one’s body’s ability to handle carbs, etc. I don’t know for sure, but it is interesting to think about these things.

The other study that has probably not been done: Only indulge in sugary treats and never indulge in starches….is that even possible? The two usually go hand-in-hand.

I think Gary Taubes makes some incredible, insightful statements above, that I will need to read again.

About that serious picture of you, Jimmy… it is a nice picture, and amusing on your replys to posts, very thoughtful-looking and all, but out there on the main page, it sort of gives the wrong impression of you to folks who don’t know that you are really the “opposite of that.”