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

Learning, memory and motor performance.(a) Novel object recognition. Average discrimination index (±SE) expressed as the duration spent sniffing the novel object divided by the duration spent sniffing both the novel and familiar objects. No differences between dietary treatment groups were observed. (b) Rotarod performance. Average (±SE) and maximum latency (s) to fall from the accelerating rotarod shown separately for glucose and fructose groups. No differences were observed between groups. (c) Contextual fear conditioning. Average percent time spent freezing (±SE) in animals that received shocks on day 1 (shock) or no shocks on day 1 (control) shown separately for glucose-fed and fructose-fed animals. Animals learned the task as indicated by a difference (P < 0.05) between the shock and control groups, but no differences between the diet groups were observed.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

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

f5: Learning, memory and motor performance.(a) Novel object recognition. Average discrimination index (±SE) expressed as the duration spent sniffing the novel object divided by the duration spent sniffing both the novel and familiar objects. No differences between dietary treatment groups were observed. (b) Rotarod performance. Average (±SE) and maximum latency (s) to fall from the accelerating rotarod shown separately for glucose and fructose groups. No differences were observed between groups. (c) Contextual fear conditioning. Average percent time spent freezing (±SE) in animals that received shocks on day 1 (shock) or no shocks on day 1 (control) shown separately for glucose-fed and fructose-fed animals. Animals learned the task as indicated by a difference (P < 0.05) between the shock and control groups, but no differences between the diet groups were observed.

Mentions: The animals spent a greater (t23 = 2.49, P = 0.02) percentage of time sniffing the novel object as compared to the familiar object as measured by the discrimination index, however there were no differences between treatment groups (Fig. 5a).


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)

Learning, memory and motor performance.(a) Novel object recognition. Average discrimination index (±SE) expressed as the duration spent sniffing the novel object divided by the duration spent sniffing both the novel and familiar objects. No differences between dietary treatment groups were observed. (b) Rotarod performance. Average (±SE) and maximum latency (s) to fall from the accelerating rotarod shown separately for glucose and fructose groups. No differences were observed between groups. (c) Contextual fear conditioning. Average percent time spent freezing (±SE) in animals that received shocks on day 1 (shock) or no shocks on day 1 (control) shown separately for glucose-fed and fructose-fed animals. Animals learned the task as indicated by a difference (P < 0.05) between the shock and control groups, but no differences between the diet groups were observed.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

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

f5: Learning, memory and motor performance.(a) Novel object recognition. Average discrimination index (±SE) expressed as the duration spent sniffing the novel object divided by the duration spent sniffing both the novel and familiar objects. No differences between dietary treatment groups were observed. (b) Rotarod performance. Average (±SE) and maximum latency (s) to fall from the accelerating rotarod shown separately for glucose and fructose groups. No differences were observed between groups. (c) Contextual fear conditioning. Average percent time spent freezing (±SE) in animals that received shocks on day 1 (shock) or no shocks on day 1 (control) shown separately for glucose-fed and fructose-fed animals. Animals learned the task as indicated by a difference (P < 0.05) between the shock and control groups, but no differences between the diet groups were observed.
Mentions: The animals spent a greater (t23 = 2.49, P = 0.02) percentage of time sniffing the novel object as compared to the familiar object as measured by the discrimination index, however there were no differences between treatment groups (Fig. 5a).

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