Limits...
Fructose decreases physical activity and increases body fat without affecting hippocampal neurogenesis and learning relative to an isocaloric glucose diet.

Rendeiro C, Masnik AM, Mun JG, Du K, Clark D, Dilger RN, Dilger AC, Rhodes JS - Sci Rep (2015)

Bottom Line: However it is unclear whether the detrimental effects are caused by fructose itself or by the concurrent increase in overall energy intake.Despite the fact that no differences in calorie intake were observed between groups, the fructose animals displayed significantly increased BW, liver mass and fat mass in comparison to the glucose group.This was further accompanied by a significant reduction in physical activity in the fructose animals.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: 1] Beckman Institute for Advanced Science and Technology, 405 N. Mathews Ave., Urbana, IL 61801 [2] Center for Nutrition, Learning and Memory, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

ABSTRACT
Recent evidence suggests that fructose consumption is associated with weight gain, fat deposition and impaired cognitive function. However it is unclear whether the detrimental effects are caused by fructose itself or by the concurrent increase in overall energy intake. In the present study we examine the impact of a fructose diet relative to an isocaloric glucose diet in the absence of overfeeding, using a mouse model that mimics fructose intake in the top percentile of the USA population (18% energy). Following 77 days of supplementation, changes in body weight (BW), body fat, physical activity, cognitive performance and adult hippocampal neurogenesis were assessed. Despite the fact that no differences in calorie intake were observed between groups, the fructose animals displayed significantly increased BW, liver mass and fat mass in comparison to the glucose group. This was further accompanied by a significant reduction in physical activity in the fructose animals. Conversely, no differences were detected in hippocampal neurogenesis and cognitive/motor performance as measured by object recognition, fear conditioning and rotorod tasks. The present study suggests that fructose per se, in the absence of excess energy intake, increases fat deposition and BW potentially by reducing physical activity, without impacting hippocampal neurogenesis or cognitive function.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Energetic cost of physical activity.To estimate the energetic cost of physical activity we regressed estimated metabolized food intake (grams) over the 5 day home cage activity test as a function of BW (grams) and total distance traveled (km). The slope of the distance coefficient was 2.1 grams (±0.51 SE) of food per km traveled. This is represented graphically as a plot of the residuals from simple linear regressions of each variable (metabolized food intake and distance traveled) on BW. The results suggest that the energetic cost of home cage physical activity was approximately 2.1 grams of metabolized food per km traveled.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4403227&req=5

f4: Energetic cost of physical activity.To estimate the energetic cost of physical activity we regressed estimated metabolized food intake (grams) over the 5 day home cage activity test as a function of BW (grams) and total distance traveled (km). The slope of the distance coefficient was 2.1 grams (±0.51 SE) of food per km traveled. This is represented graphically as a plot of the residuals from simple linear regressions of each variable (metabolized food intake and distance traveled) on BW. The results suggest that the energetic cost of home cage physical activity was approximately 2.1 grams of metabolized food per km traveled.

Mentions: The energetic cost of home cage physical activity was estimated using a multiple regression of estimated metabolized food intake (grams) over the 5 day home cage activity test as a function of BW (grams) and total distance traveled (in km)39. Both BW (F1,19 = 5.3, P = 0.03) and distance traveled (F1,19 = 17.2, P = 0.0005) were significant predictors of metabolized food intake. The slope of the relationship between distance and food intake after correcting for differences in BW was 2.1 grams (±0.51 SE) of food per km, implying that mice must metabolize 2.1 grams of food (8.59 kcal) per km to support the movement over and above energy needed for basal metabolism (Fig. 4). As such, we estimate an average energy expenditure of 1.95 (±0.18 SE) kcal/day for the fructose group and of 2.44 (±0.11 SE) kcal/day for the glucose group. Based on these energy expenditure values, we estimated the interval range for the difference in total BW between the two groups to be 2.4 g – 3.9 g, the actual difference detected was 2.6 (±0.83 SE) g. The lower value in the interval assumes all extra energy in the fructose group was converted to fat mass. The upper value in the interval assumes 50% was converted to fat and 50% was converted to fat free mass. As an approximation, we also assumed that the difference in energy expenditure between the groups was observed just for 50% of the days of the intervention period, because we detected no differences in physical activity between groups for the first few days of acclimatization during the physical activity test.


Fructose decreases physical activity and increases body fat without affecting hippocampal neurogenesis and learning relative to an isocaloric glucose diet.

Rendeiro C, Masnik AM, Mun JG, Du K, Clark D, Dilger RN, Dilger AC, Rhodes JS - Sci Rep (2015)

Energetic cost of physical activity.To estimate the energetic cost of physical activity we regressed estimated metabolized food intake (grams) over the 5 day home cage activity test as a function of BW (grams) and total distance traveled (km). The slope of the distance coefficient was 2.1 grams (±0.51 SE) of food per km traveled. This is represented graphically as a plot of the residuals from simple linear regressions of each variable (metabolized food intake and distance traveled) on BW. The results suggest that the energetic cost of home cage physical activity was approximately 2.1 grams of metabolized food per km traveled.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4403227&req=5

f4: Energetic cost of physical activity.To estimate the energetic cost of physical activity we regressed estimated metabolized food intake (grams) over the 5 day home cage activity test as a function of BW (grams) and total distance traveled (km). The slope of the distance coefficient was 2.1 grams (±0.51 SE) of food per km traveled. This is represented graphically as a plot of the residuals from simple linear regressions of each variable (metabolized food intake and distance traveled) on BW. The results suggest that the energetic cost of home cage physical activity was approximately 2.1 grams of metabolized food per km traveled.
Mentions: The energetic cost of home cage physical activity was estimated using a multiple regression of estimated metabolized food intake (grams) over the 5 day home cage activity test as a function of BW (grams) and total distance traveled (in km)39. Both BW (F1,19 = 5.3, P = 0.03) and distance traveled (F1,19 = 17.2, P = 0.0005) were significant predictors of metabolized food intake. The slope of the relationship between distance and food intake after correcting for differences in BW was 2.1 grams (±0.51 SE) of food per km, implying that mice must metabolize 2.1 grams of food (8.59 kcal) per km to support the movement over and above energy needed for basal metabolism (Fig. 4). As such, we estimate an average energy expenditure of 1.95 (±0.18 SE) kcal/day for the fructose group and of 2.44 (±0.11 SE) kcal/day for the glucose group. Based on these energy expenditure values, we estimated the interval range for the difference in total BW between the two groups to be 2.4 g – 3.9 g, the actual difference detected was 2.6 (±0.83 SE) g. The lower value in the interval assumes all extra energy in the fructose group was converted to fat mass. The upper value in the interval assumes 50% was converted to fat and 50% was converted to fat free mass. As an approximation, we also assumed that the difference in energy expenditure between the groups was observed just for 50% of the days of the intervention period, because we detected no differences in physical activity between groups for the first few days of acclimatization during the physical activity test.

Bottom Line: However it is unclear whether the detrimental effects are caused by fructose itself or by the concurrent increase in overall energy intake.Despite the fact that no differences in calorie intake were observed between groups, the fructose animals displayed significantly increased BW, liver mass and fat mass in comparison to the glucose group.This was further accompanied by a significant reduction in physical activity in the fructose animals.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: 1] Beckman Institute for Advanced Science and Technology, 405 N. Mathews Ave., Urbana, IL 61801 [2] Center for Nutrition, Learning and Memory, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

ABSTRACT
Recent evidence suggests that fructose consumption is associated with weight gain, fat deposition and impaired cognitive function. However it is unclear whether the detrimental effects are caused by fructose itself or by the concurrent increase in overall energy intake. In the present study we examine the impact of a fructose diet relative to an isocaloric glucose diet in the absence of overfeeding, using a mouse model that mimics fructose intake in the top percentile of the USA population (18% energy). Following 77 days of supplementation, changes in body weight (BW), body fat, physical activity, cognitive performance and adult hippocampal neurogenesis were assessed. Despite the fact that no differences in calorie intake were observed between groups, the fructose animals displayed significantly increased BW, liver mass and fat mass in comparison to the glucose group. This was further accompanied by a significant reduction in physical activity in the fructose animals. Conversely, no differences were detected in hippocampal neurogenesis and cognitive/motor performance as measured by object recognition, fear conditioning and rotorod tasks. The present study suggests that fructose per se, in the absence of excess energy intake, increases fat deposition and BW potentially by reducing physical activity, without impacting hippocampal neurogenesis or cognitive function.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus