4.4 Article Proceedings Paper

Metabolic interaction of dietary sugars and plasma lipids with a focus on mechanisms and de novo lipogenesis

期刊

PROCEEDINGS OF THE NUTRITION SOCIETY
卷 66, 期 1, 页码 52-59

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S0029665107005290

关键词

carbohydrate-induced hypertriacylglycerolaemia : sugars : mechanisms : de novo lipogenesis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The elevation of blood lipid concentrations in response to the consumption of low-fat high-carbohydrate diets is known as carbohydrate-induced hypertriacylglycerolaemia (HPTG). An understanding of the mechanisms involved in the interaction between carbohydrates and plasma lipids may help determine whether carbohydrate-induced HPTG would increase cardiovascular risk. There is growing evidence to suggest that the sugar component of the diet may be largely responsible, rather than the total carbohydrate. In most studies designed to investigate the mechanisms of carbohydrate-induced HPTG, the amounts and types of sugars and starches used in the diets are not specified. Findings have been mixed and inconsistent. It is proposed that the elucidation of mechanisms from current studies could have been confounded by the different ways in which sugars are metabolized in the body. At present, there are few studies that have evaluated the independent effects of dietary sugars. Interest has been focused on de novo lipogenesis (DNL), as it has recently been found to be positively correlated with increases in fasting TAG levels produced on high-carbohydrate diets, indicating that DNL may contribute to carbohydrate-induced HPTG. DNL has been found to be determined by starch: sugar in a high-carbohydrate diet and affected by different types of sugars. The presence of DNL in adipose tissue is supported by emerging gene-expression studies in human subjects. In the wake of rising intakes of sugars, further research is needed to investigate the mechanisms associated with different sugars, so that appropriate therapeutic strategies can be adopted.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据