Taurine attenuates hypertension and improves insulin sensitivity in the fructose-fed rat, an animal model of insulin resistance.
- PubMed - NCBI
The NCBI web site requires JavaScript to function.
FormatSummarySummary (text)AbstractAbstract (text)MEDLINEXMLPMID ListChoose DestinationFileClipboardCollectionsE-mailOrderMy BibliographyCitation managerFormatSummary (text)Abstract (text)MEDLINEXMLPMID ListCSVCreate File1 selected item: FormatSummarySummary (text)AbstractAbstract (text)MEDLINEXMLPMID ListMeSH and Other DataE-mailSubjectAdditional textE-mailAdd to ClipboardAdd to CollectionsOrder articlesAdd to My BibliographyGenerate a file for use with external citation management software.Create File
):749-54.Taurine attenuates hypertension and improves insulin sensitivity in the fructose-fed rat, an animal model of insulin resistance.1, .1Department of Biochemistry, Annamalai University, Annamalai Nagar, Tamil Nadu, India.AbstractFructose feeding induces moderate increases in blood pressure levels in normal rats, which is associated with hyperinsulinemia, insulin resistance, and impaired glucose tolerance. Increased vascular resistance, sodium retention, and sympathetic overactivity have been proposed to contribute to the blood pressure elevation in this model. Taurine, a sulphur-containing amino acid, has been reported to have antihypertensive and sympatholytic actions. In the present study, the effects of taurine on blood pressure, plasma levels of glucose and insulin, glucose tolerance, and renal function were studied in fructose-fed rats. Fructose-fed rats had higher blood pressure and elevated plasma levels of insulin and glucose. The plasma glucose levels were higher in fructose-fed rats than in controls at 15, 30, and 60 min after the oral glucose load. Treatment with 2% taurine in drinking water prevented the blood pressure elevation and attenuated the hyperinsulinemia in fructose-fed rats. The exaggerated glucose levels in response to the oral glucose load was also prevented by taurine administration. Thus, taurine supplementation could be beneficial in circumventing metabolic alterations in insulin resistance.PMID:
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Publication TypesMeSH TermsSubstancesFull Text SourcesOther Literature SourcesMedicalMolecular Biology Databases
Supplemental Content
External link. Please review our .英语翻译It was feeding time at the zoo.All the animals were getting their food.The lions ate their meat.The elephants ate their hay.The monkeys ate their bananas.The bears ate their honey.Then it was time for the seals to be fed.Mr.Johnson took t_百度作业帮
拍照搜题，秒出答案
英语翻译It was feeding time at the zoo.All the animals were getting their food.The lions ate their meat.The elephants ate their hay.The monkeys ate their bananas.The bears ate their honey.Then it was time for the seals to be fed.Mr.Johnson took t
英语翻译It was feeding time at the zoo.All the animals were getting their food.The lions ate their meat.The elephants ate their hay.The monkeys ate their bananas.The bears ate their honey.Then it was time for the seals to be fed.Mr.Johnson took them fish.“Hooray for fish!”said the seals.They jumped in the water.Soon the basket was empty.“That is all there is,”said Mr.Johnson.“There is no more.”“Thank you for the fish,”said the seals.“They were good.”The seals were happy.But one little seal was not happy.He sat by himself.He looked sad.“What is wrong,Sammy?”said Mr.Johnson.“I want to know what it is like outside the zoo,”said the little seal.“I want to go out and look around.”“All right,Sammy,”said Mr.Johnson.“You have been a good seal.You may go out and see."“Good-bye,Sammy,”said the other seals.“Have a good time.”“Good-bye,”said Sammy.“Where are you going?"said the zebral.“I am going out,”said Sammy.“Have fun,”said the hippo."Come back soon,"said the giraffe.Sammy walked and walked and walked.He did not know what to look at first."That seal must be from out of town,"said a man.Sammy looked at everything."What street is this?"said a man.“I am a stranger here myself,”said sammy.“I guess it is feeding time here,too,”said sammy.“That is a lovely fur coat,”said a lady.“Where did you get it?”“I was born with it,”said Sammy.“I wish I could find some water.I am hot.I want to go swimming,”said Sammy.“We are sorry.There is no room for you in this puddle,"said the birds.“And there is no room for you here,"said the goldfish.“Keep out,"said the policeman.“You cannot swim in there.” “Ah,here is a place!”said Sammy.“Who is in my bathtub?”said someone.“I am sorry,”said Sammy.He left at once.Some children were standing in line.Sammy got in line,too.“What are we waiting for?”asked Sammy.“School.What do you think?”said a boy.“That will be fun.I will come,too,"Sammy said.The teacher was not looking.Sammy sat down.The children made words with blocks.Sammy wished he could spell.“All right,children.Now we will all sing a song,”said the teacher.“Is it you,Joey?”said the teacher.“No,”said Joey.“Is it you,Helen?”said the teacher.“No,”said Helen.“Is it you,Dorothy,Robert,Fred,Joan,or Agnes?”“No,”said the children.“Then it must be you,”said the teacher.“I am sorry.This school is just for boys and girls.”
海豹Sammy那是一个动物园喂食的时间.所有的动物都在吃他们的东西.狮子们吃它们的肉.大象们吃它们的干草.猴子们吃它们的香蕉.熊们吃它们的蜂蜜.然后到了该喂海豹的时候了.Johnson先生给它们喂鱼吃.“鱼来了!”海豹们说.然后跳进的水里.很快篮子就空了.“就只有这些了”Johnson先生说.“谢谢你的鱼,它们很好吃”海豹们高兴地说.但是有一只小海豹并不开心.它肚子坐着,看起来很难过.“怎么了,Sammy?“Johnson先生说.“我想知道动物园外面是什么样的”小海豹说,“我想出去看看”.“好吧,Sammy”Johnson先生说.“你是一只好海豹,我可以让你出去看看”“再见Sammy”其他的海豹说,“玩的愉快”.Sammy 说“再见”“你要去哪里?”斑马说.“我要出去”Sammy说.“玩的高兴”河马说.“早点回来”长颈鹿说.Sammy走啊走啊.它不知道该先看什么.“那个海豹一定是其他小镇来的”一个人说.Sammy看着这一切.“这是什么街?”一个人问Sammy.Sammy说：“我也是才来这里”“我猜这里也会有喂食的时间”Sammy说.“那是个很好的毛外套”一位女士说,“你从哪里弄来的?”“我生下来就有它”Sammy说.“我希望能找到些水,我好热,我想游泳”Sammy说.“真抱歉,我们的窝里已经没有空间让你进来了”鸟儿们说.“我们这里也没地方了”金鱼们说.“不准进来,你不能在这里游泳”警察说.“奥!终于找到一个可以游泳的地方了!”Sammy说.“是谁在我的浴缸里?”有人说.“很抱歉”Sammy说.Sammy立刻离开了.一些学生们在排队,于是Sammy也站到了队列里.“我们在等什么?”Sammy问“学校啊,你认为是什么?”一个男孩说.Sammy说“那一定很好玩,我也要去.”老师没有在注意看.Sammy坐了下来.孩子们用积木做出单词来.Sammy希望它自己也会拼写单词.“好了,孩子们,现在我们来唱一首歌.”老师说.“是你吗,Joey?”Joey说“不是我”.“是你吗,Helen?”Helen说“不是我”“那你是Dorothy,Robert,Fred,Joan,还是Agnes?”“都不是”孩子们说.“那一定是你了.”老师说,“对不起,这个学校只对男生女生开放” 累死了!
这是动物园的喂食时间。所有的动物都在他们的食物。狮子吃他们的肉。大象吃干草。猴子吃香蕉。熊吃蜂蜜。它是当时的海豹喂食。约翰逊先生把他们的鱼。“万岁的鱼！“海豹。他们跳入水中。不久，篮子是空的。”这是所有有，”约翰逊先生。“没有更多。”谢谢你的鱼，”印章。”他们是很好的。”密封的快乐。但有一个密封不高兴。他坐在他自己。他看起来很悲伤。”什么是错，萨米？说：“约翰逊先生。“我想知道它是什么样子在动物园...Is grass-fed beef really better for you, the animal and the planet?
Resize Text
Grass-fed Angus cattle roam the pasture at Wholesome Living Farm in Winchester, Ky. It’s an appealing scene, but is grass-fed beef the best choice for the consumer, the animal and the planet? (Luke Sharett/Bloomberg)
Grass-fed beef is the meat of the moment. The image of cattle dotting green hillsides is an appealing counterpoint to the thought of herds corralled in crowded, grass-free feedlots. Advocates claim a trifecta of advantages: Grass-fed beef is better for you, for the animal and for the planet. Is it? [] First, let’s establish what we’re talking about. All U.S. beef cattle are started on grass, so “grass-fed” actually means “grass-finished,” or fed grass their whole lives. The USDA specifies that, to qualify as “grass-fed,” the animal has to eat “grass and forage” exclusively (after weaning) and must have “continuous access to pasture during the growing season.” It does not specify how much feed has to
hay and other harvested forage is allowed. (There are also third-party certification programs with varying criteria.) Now, on to the questions.
It usually has higher concentrations of some nutrients: antioxidants, some vitamins, a kind of fat called conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) and the long-chain omega-3 fats mostly found in fish. It also has less fat overall. Most health claims focus on the omega-3 fats, which are generally regarded as healthful. The other nutrients are less relevant, says Alice H. Lichtenstein, a professor at Tufts University’s Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy: Either their amounts are too small to be significant or evidence of their value is equivocal. (Read the research on CLA, for example, and you find that a lot of “further research is warranted” and “findings are inconsistent.”) As to the omega-3s, we need to look at amounts. Omega-3 levels in grass-fed beef generally are about 50 percent higher than in regular beef. But because the levels in regular beef are so low, that’s not much of an advantage. Concentrations can vary widely, but according to the USDA, a 100-gram serving (a little under four ounces) of grass-fed top sirloin contains 65 milligrams of omega-3 fats, loin has 40 and rib-eye has 37. So even that 65-milligram amount is only about 22 milligrams more than that for regular beef and still far below levels in low-fat fishes such as tilapia (134 milligrams) and haddock (136). The omega-3 powerhouse king salmon has 1,270 milligrams. (The same logic applies to milk from grass-fed cows. It’s higher in long-chain omega-3 fats than milk from grain-fed cows, but a cup still has only 18 milligrams.) Recommendations on how much of the most are in the range of 300 to 1,000 milligrams per day.
“Grass-fed beef is fine” says Lichtenstein, “but it’s not a good source of omega-3 fats.” Although it certainly has a better fat profile than standard beef, she says she’s concerned that a reputation for healthfulness will make people believe that it’s better for them than it is, which will lead to overconsumption. The bottom line is that grass-fed beef is probably better for you, but only a little. Don’t hang your hat on it. If you like it (and not everyone does), by all means, eat it.
A grass-fed yearling bull. Experts differ over whether grass feeding is better than feedlots. (Charles McQuillan/Getty Images)
■ The answer is a resounding “it depends.” I’m drawn to the idea of cattle grazing freely in fields. I’ve seen the pictures of the green hillsides, and I’ve seen the pictures of the muddy feedlots. I asked Temple Grandin, one of our foremost experts on animal welfare, whose work informs livestock systems across the country, whether grazing cattle are happier than feedlot cattle. The first thing she said was, “grain is like cake and ice cream to cows,” and I can’t help thinking that eating something they find delicious contributes to the animals’ happiness. It certainly does to mine. But, just as it’s unadvisable for us to make cake and ice cream our sole ration, cattle shouldn’t be eating only grain. “Grain is fine as long as there’s plenty of roughage,” says Grandin. Otherwise, the pH in the animal’s system can become too acidic, and that leads to all kinds of health problems. The idea that feeding grain to a ruminant, whose digestive system is fine-tuned for grass, leads to suffering is both right and wrong. “The problem comes when you push too hard,” says Grandin. Animals grow faster on grain, she points out, so there’s a financial incentive for the rancher to up the grain ration. Like anything connected with the care of animals, feeding cattle grain can be done well or poorly. Grandin talked about other issues as well. If the feedlot is dry, roomy and shaded, cattle are perfectly content. If it’s muddy, crowded or hot, they’re not. One of the keys to cattle happiness, it turns out, is drainage. “The feed yard should have a 2 to 3 percent slope to keep it dry,” says Grandin. Pastures can pose problems, too. “Cattle also really like to graze,” she says, “but that hillside when you have a blizzard is not so nice.” The key to cattle’s well-being isn’t in the venue. It’s in the management. What’s maddening is that, when you’re standing in front of your market’s meat case, you usually can’t know which feedlot, or which pasture, the beef came from, let alone how it’s managed.
Here’s where things get really complicated. In general, beef is not planet-friendly. Cattle produce methane, a potent greenhouse gas, and beef routinely tops the charts of foods you should eat less of to curb climate change. Grass-fed advocates maintain that well-managed grazing can offset or even completely compensate for methane and other greenhouse gases associated with beef cattle by locking carbon in the soil. The vegetation soaks up and stores, or sequesters, carbon, preventing carbon dioxide — another greenhouse gas — from being released into the atmosphere. The operative phrase is “well-managed.” When poorly managed, grazing can degrade pasture, and scientists and ranchers are experimenting with various densities and grazing patterns to try to figure out which ones lead to more effective carbon sequestration. According to Jason Rowntree, an assistant professor at Michigan State University who specializes in grass-eating cattle, some researchers have managed to sequester three metric tons of carbon per hectare, about 2.5 acres, per year. (Sequestering a ton of carbon is the equivalent of locking away 3.7 tons of carbon dioxide.) But Rattan Lal, director of the Carbon Management and Sequestration Center at Ohio State University, sets expectations lower. He says one metric ton per hectare is a reasonable estimate of the maximum that grazing can sequester in a place like Ohio, where growing conditions generally are favorable, and a half-ton would be more realistic in drier areas. He supports grass-fed beef but says carbon sequestration “can’t completely compensate for the greenhouse gases in beef production.”
Weighing carbon sequestration against methane production is a dicey business, and I’ve read many different estimates. To get a back-of-the-envelope sense of how the two compare, I did the math. The methane produced yearly by a beef steer is approximately equivalent to the carbon sequestered in an acre and a half (at Lal’s one-ton-per-hectare rate). The steer’s methane isn’t the only issue, of course: The climate cost of each steer has to include a whole year’s worth of its mom’s methane, since cows have only one calf annually. Then there are all the other inputs, including what goes into growing and harvesting the hay the steer eats when pasture is unavailable. As always, it’s complicated. I found little agreement on how much carbon well-managed grazing can sequester, but across-the-board agreement that it can certainly sequester some. But, diabolically, so can well-managed grain farming: Systems that use crop rotation, cover crops, composting and no-till also sequester carbon. If we’re comparing grass-fed with grain-fed, it’s only fair to assume excellent management in both systems. There are a few other confounding issues. Cattle fed grain emit less methane and grow faster, which means they’re not alive — emitting methane — as long. Confining cattle in feedlots allows manure to be collected and fed to a digester, which converts it to energy — or, of course, it can leak out of badly managed facilities to pollute our water. In winter, bringing in harvested hay requires more energy than bringing in grain, because you need more of it. But grass-fed cattle turn a plant that humans can’t eat into high-quality people food, which is important in places where marginal land will grow grass but not crops. It’s a very mixed bag. Some grass-fed cattle are better for the planet than some grain-fed, and vice versa.
Farmer Raymond Palmer raises grass-fed cattle in Lifford, Ireland. (Charles McQuillan/Getty Images)
Where does that leave us? Well, it’s left me a little less doctrinaire. Almost always, when I talk to scientists and farmers about food supply issues — whether it’s farm size, organic methods, animal welfare, GMOs, climate impact — the answer is complicated. When it comes to feeding people, there is never one right answer. It depends on the farm, the area, the animal, the crop, the weather, the market and a bazillion other things. Both Rowntree, who has spent years figuring out how best to graze cattle, and Lal, who has devoted a career to climate-change mitigation, are quick to tell me that grass-fed isn’t the only way. “No matter what strategy you choose,” says Lal, “there are always trade-offs.” What the grass-fed vs. grain-fed debate really tells us is how inadequate labels are to differentiate good from bad in our food supply. Yet those labels are regularly embroidered on flags and hoisted over intractable positions. Grass-fed beef is better! Buy organic! Only GMOs can feed the world! What I wouldn’t give for a certificate of prudence, attesting to sound management, humane standards and responsible stewardship on any kind of farm. It’s worth working toward, and lowering the flags would be a good start.
Haspel, a freelance writer, farms oysters on Cape Cod and writes about food and science. On Twitter: . She’ll join Wednesday’s Free Range chat at noon: .
More from :
SuperFan Badge SuperFan badge holders consistently post smart, timely comments about Washington area sports and teams.
Culture Connoisseur Badge Culture Connoisseurs consistently offer thought-provoking, timely comments on the arts, lifestyle and entertainment.
Fact Checker Badge Fact Checkers contribute questions, information and facts to .
Washingtologist Badge Washingtologists consistently post thought-provoking, timely comments on events, communities, and trends in the Washington area.
Post Writer Badge This commenter is a Washington Post editor, reporter or producer.
Post Forum Badge Post Forum members consistently offer thought-provoking, timely comments on politics, national and international affairs.
Weather Watcher Badge Weather Watchers consistently offer thought-provoking, timely comments on climates and forecasts.
World Watcher Badge World Watchers consistently offer thought-provoking, timely comments on international affairs.
Post Contributor Badge This commenter is a Washington Post contributor. Post contributors aren’t staff, but may write articles or columns. In some cases, contributors are sources or experts quoted in a story.
Post Recommended Washington Post reporters or editors recommend this comment or reader post.
You must be logged in to report a comment.
You must be logged in to recommend a comment.
To pause and restart automatic updates, click "Live" or "Paused". If paused, you'll be notified of the number of additional comments that have come in.
Spam Offensive Disagree Off-Topic
lifestyle food
Success! Check your inbox for details.
Please enter a valid email address
You might also like:
Sign Up No Thanks
Our Online Games Play right from this page
lifestyle food
Success! Check your inbox for details.
Incorrect email}