Intrahepatic Fat and Postprandial Glycemia Increase After Consumption of a Diet Enriched in Saturated Fat Compared With Free Sugars
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Debate continues regarding the influence of dietary fats and sugars on the risk of developing metabolic diseases, including insulin resistance and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). We investigated the effect of two eucaloric diets, one enriched with saturated fat (SFA) and the other enriched with free sugars (SUGAR), on intrahepatic triacylglycerol (IHTAG) content, hepatic de novo lipogenesis (DNL), and whole-body postprandial metabolism in overweight males. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS Sixteen overweight males were randomized to consume the SFA or SUGAR diet for 4 weeks before consuming the alternate diet after a 7-week washout period. The metabolic effects of the respective diets on IHTAG content, hepatic DNL, and whole-body metabolism were investigated using imaging techniques and metabolic substrates labeled with stable-isotope tracers. RESULTS Consumption of the SFA diet significantly increased IHTAG by mean ± SEM 39.0 ± 10.0%, while after the SUGAR diet IHTAG was virtually unchanged. Consumption of the SFA diet induced an exaggerated postprandial glucose and insulin response to a standardized test meal compared with SUGAR. Although whole-body fat oxidation, lipolysis, and DNL were similar following the two diets, consumption of the SUGAR diet resulted in significant (P < 0.05) decreases in plasma total, HDL, and non-HDL cholesterol and fasting β-hydroxybutyrate plasma concentrations. CONCLUSIONS Consumption of an SFA diet had a potent effect, increasing IHTAG together with exaggerating postprandial glycemia. The SUGAR diet did not influence IHTAG and induced minor metabolic changes. Our findings indicate that a diet enriched in SFA is more harmful to metabolic health than a diet enriched in free sugars.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".