Ray On Sucrose Vs Fructose Preference

goodandevil

Member
Joined
May 27, 2015
Messages
978
Q:"My understanding is that fructose is superior in all aspects, except maybe it's taken into the liver preferentially over other organs. My girlfriend seems to prefer sucrose. Thx."

R:"I prefer sucrose because of the purity; the manufacture of fructose can introduce allergens."
 
J

jb116

Guest
This title is cause for confusion because the context implies that Peat is referring to manufactured fructose "supplements" not that he prefers sucrose over fructose. In fact that itself doesn't really make sense since half of the component of sucrose is fructose. More accurately it should read: "Ray on different manufactured sugar."
 

yerrag

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Messages
10,883
Location
Manila
So this is comes down to a matter of purity in manufacturing. Vitamin C is not good because of heavy metal contamination, specifically lead, in the manufacturing process. And fructose is not so good because of allergens from the manufacturing process.

A shame really. Nothing against Ray, he's just the messenger. Something good in itself becomes bad because it is spoiled by the economics of manufacturing it. Can't fathom if many fine grades of chemicals can get USP designation because the manufacturing process is made capable, why it is that vitamin C and fructose can't be made better.

Ray has spoken about fructose being metabolized easily by diabetics, and of fructose being of benefit to restore the beta cells of the pancreas to enable insulin production. But he also disses on fructose just because it can't be manufactured right.
 

LUH 3417

Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2016
Messages
2,990
I thought fructose was fruit sugar. What manufacturing goes into making fruits? I don’t understand.
 
J

jb116

Guest
I thought fructose was fruit sugar. What manufacturing goes into making fruits? I don’t understand.
There's no such thing as isolated fructose from nature. Its found in sucrose. Fructose is in fruits as 1/2 of the sugar component of the sucrose. Manufacturing regarding fructose refers to manufactured, isolated fructose. Ray is not fond of that because of the allergens and/or contaminants. He otherwise does not look down on fructose as a component of sugar at all and holds fructose in high regard.
 

LUH 3417

Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2016
Messages
2,990
There's no such thing as isolated fructose from nature. Its found in sucrose. Fructose is in fruits as 1/2 of the sugar component of the sucrose. Manufacturing regarding fructose refers to manufactured, isolated fructose. Ray is not fond of that because of the allergens and/or contaminants. He otherwise does not look down on fructose as a component of sugar at all and holds fructose in high regard.
I don’t recall seeing fructose on food labels unless I just don’t eat those foods. What processed foods contain fructose?
 

Wagner83

Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2016
Messages
3,295
The manufactured fructose comes from corn
Or beets.
If one is eating glucose-free then he/she is not eating foods, except for a dairy diet. Also he said white sugar would be ok as an acute anti stress food but it isn't sustainable in large amounts daily.
 

yerrag

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Messages
10,883
Location
Manila
There goes my evil plan to rid the world of diabetes using the diabolical sugar called fructose!
 

lvysaur

Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2014
Messages
2,286
Or beets.
aren't beets usually used to produce sucrose, as an alternative to sugar cane?

fructose is very easy to extract from corn, it's even in the name of HFCS...I don't think anyone major is using beets for fructose
 

Wagner83

Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2016
Messages
3,295
aren't beets usually used to produce sucrose, as an alternative to sugar cane?

fructose is very easy to extract from corn, it's even in the name of HFCS...I don't think anyone major is using beets for fructose
In Europe the fructose powder I had access to was from beets (from Israel??) . HFCS is just 5% more fructose than sucrose afaik.

Edit:
Fructose - Wikipedia
"Commercially, fructose is derived from sugar cane, sugar beets, and maize."
 
J

jb116

Guest
This is false. Plenty of fruits have fructose out of balance with glucose, indicating that at least some of it must be in free form.

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/d2/82/b3/d282b3e49e12c10966ad137ab28f5bc4.jpg
Huh? You're totally misunderstanding the point of what I'm saying.
First, the proportion is not a question here, it's irrelevant. And secondly, proportion makes no difference on the question of "isolated fructose."
Isolated fructose refers to the fructose component isolated from the other sugar component. And that manufacturing process is where allergens/impurities affect it as a product.
There is no pure or isolated fructose in nature.
 

Travis

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2016
Messages
3,189
Honey is also approximately half fructose and half glucose, if you count sucrose and one of each. There seems to be many more foods that contain essentially all glucose (i.e. starch) than contain all fructose, and I can't even think of an example that falls in the latter category.

I consider the natural ratio as being roughly half-&-half, because fruit seems a bit more natural than potatoes. I did read a metabolic study last year that had concluded sucrose is actually metabolized quicker than an isocaloric amount of either glucose or fructose.

Fructose does not effect insulin nearly to the same extent as glucose.
 
OP
goodandevil

goodandevil

Member
Joined
May 27, 2015
Messages
978
Honey is also approximately half fructose and half glucose, if you count sucrose and one of each. There seems to be many more foods that contain essentially all glucose (i.e. starch) than contain all fructose, and I can't even think of an example that falls in the latter category.

I consider the natural ratio as being roughly half-&-half, because fruit seems a bit more natural than potatoes. I did read a metabolic study last year that had concluded sucrose is actually metabolized quicker than an isocaloric amount of either glucose or fructose.

Fructose does not effect insulin nearly to the same extent as glucose.
I think i read some time ago that glucose assists fructose absorption from the gut, something about isolated fructose causing indigestion whereas sucrose does not.
 

yerrag

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Messages
10,883
Location
Manila
I think i read some time ago that glucose assists fructose absorption from the gut, something about isolated fructose causing indigestion whereas sucrose does not.
This thread on fructose got me to read up again of Ray Peat's article "Sugar Issues." It talks of fructose assisting glucose absorption, and not the other way around. But I had to read up on the article to see that.

Fructose therapy for diabetes had its day twice in the past, only to be interrupted once by the discovery of insulin, and then again by the development of the cholesterol theory of heart disease:

In an earlier newsletter, I wrote about P. A. Piorry in Paris, in 1864, and Dr. William Budd in England, in 1867, who treated diabetes by adding a large amount of ordinary sugar, sucrose, to the patient's diet. Glucose was known to be the sugar appearing in the diabetics' urine, but sucrose consists of half glucose, and half fructose. In 1874, E. Kulz in Germany reported that diabetics could assimilate fructose better than glucose. In the next decades there were several more reports on the benefits of feeding fructose, including the reduction of glucose in the urine. With the discovery of insulin in 1922, fructose therapy was practically forgotten...

...until the 1950s when new manufacturing techniques began to make it economical to use.
Its use in diabetic diets became so popular that it became available in health food stores, and was also used in hospitals for intravenous feeding.
However, while fructose was becoming popular, the cholesterol theory of heart disease was being promoted. This was the theory that eating foods containing saturated fat and cholesterol caused heart disease. (My newsletter, Cholesterol, longevity, intelligence, and health, discussed the development of that theory.)
A Swedish physician and researcher, Uffe Ravnskov, has reviewed the medical arguments for the theory that lipids in the blood are the cause of atherosclerosis and heart disease, and shows that there has never been evidence of causality, something which some people, such as Broda Barnes, understood from the beginning. In the 1950s, an English professor, John Yudkin, didn't accept the idea that eating saturated fat was the cause of high blood levels of triglycerides and cholesterol, but he didn’t question the theory that lipids in the blood caused the circulatory disease. He argued that it was sugar, especially the fructose component of sucrose, rather than dietary fat, that caused the high blood lipids seen in the affluent countries, and consequently the diseases. He was sure it was a specific chemical effect of the fructose, because he argued that the nutrients that were removed in refining white flour and white sugar were insignificant, in the whole diet.
Following the publication of Yudkin's books, and coinciding with increasing promotion of the health benefits of unsaturated vegetable oils, many people were converted to Yudkin's version of the lipid theory of heart disease, i.e., that the "bad lipids" in the blood are the result of eating sugar. This has grown into essentially a cult, in which sugar is believed to act like an intoxicant, forcing people to eat until they become obese, and develop the "metabolic syndrome," and "diabetes," and the many problems that derive from that.

Will fructose ever find its way back to good graces with people suffering with diabetes? Given the allergenic nature of corn-derived fructose, is there a chance we could get isolated fructose from beets, or from cane sugar, that isn't allergenic.

Isn't anyone in this forum ever interested in resurrecting the use of fructose for curing diabetes? It's not difficult to find friends and relatives afflicted with this scourge, and whom we can help, right? It just seems we're all waiting for someone to set the stage for us.
 

haidut

Member
Forum Supporter
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
19,798
Location
USA / Europe
Honey is also approximately half fructose and half glucose, if you count sucrose and one of each. There seems to be many more foods that contain essentially all glucose (i.e. starch) than contain all fructose, and I can't even think of an example that falls in the latter category.

I consider the natural ratio as being roughly half-&-half, because fruit seems a bit more natural than potatoes. I did read a metabolic study last year that had concluded sucrose is actually metabolized quicker than an isocaloric amount of either glucose or fructose.

Fructose does not effect insulin nearly to the same extent as glucose.

AFAIK, the sugars in some type of pears consists of up to 80% fructose. But I also don't know of a natural source of pure fructose.
 
OP
goodandevil

goodandevil

Member
Joined
May 27, 2015
Messages
978
This thread on fructose got me to read up again of Ray Peat's article "Sugar Issues." It talks of fructose assisting glucose absorption, and not the other way around. But I had to read up on the article to see that.

Fructose therapy for diabetes had its day twice in the past, only to be interrupted once by the discovery of insulin, and then again by the development of the cholesterol theory of heart disease:

In an earlier newsletter, I wrote about P. A. Piorry in Paris, in 1864, and Dr. William Budd in England, in 1867, who treated diabetes by adding a large amount of ordinary sugar, sucrose, to the patient's diet. Glucose was known to be the sugar appearing in the diabetics' urine, but sucrose consists of half glucose, and half fructose. In 1874, E. Kulz in Germany reported that diabetics could assimilate fructose better than glucose. In the next decades there were several more reports on the benefits of feeding fructose, including the reduction of glucose in the urine. With the discovery of insulin in 1922, fructose therapy was practically forgotten...

...until the 1950s when new manufacturing techniques began to make it economical to use.
Its use in diabetic diets became so popular that it became available in health food stores, and was also used in hospitals for intravenous feeding.
However, while fructose was becoming popular, the cholesterol theory of heart disease was being promoted. This was the theory that eating foods containing saturated fat and cholesterol caused heart disease. (My newsletter, Cholesterol, longevity, intelligence, and health, discussed the development of that theory.)
A Swedish physician and researcher, Uffe Ravnskov, has reviewed the medical arguments for the theory that lipids in the blood are the cause of atherosclerosis and heart disease, and shows that there has never been evidence of causality, something which some people, such as Broda Barnes, understood from the beginning. In the 1950s, an English professor, John Yudkin, didn't accept the idea that eating saturated fat was the cause of high blood levels of triglycerides and cholesterol, but he didn’t question the theory that lipids in the blood caused the circulatory disease. He argued that it was sugar, especially the fructose component of sucrose, rather than dietary fat, that caused the high blood lipids seen in the affluent countries, and consequently the diseases. He was sure it was a specific chemical effect of the fructose, because he argued that the nutrients that were removed in refining white flour and white sugar were insignificant, in the whole diet.
Following the publication of Yudkin's books, and coinciding with increasing promotion of the health benefits of unsaturated vegetable oils, many people were converted to Yudkin's version of the lipid theory of heart disease, i.e., that the "bad lipids" in the blood are the result of eating sugar. This has grown into essentially a cult, in which sugar is believed to act like an intoxicant, forcing people to eat until they become obese, and develop the "metabolic syndrome," and "diabetes," and the many problems that derive from that.

Will fructose ever find its way back to good graces with people suffering with diabetes? Given the allergenic nature of corn-derived fructose, is there a chance we could get isolated fructose from beets, or from cane sugar, that isn't allergenic.

Isn't anyone in this forum ever interested in resurrecting the use of fructose for curing diabetes? It's not difficult to find friends and relatives afflicted with this scourge, and whom we can help, right? It just seems we're all waiting for someone to set the stage for us.
Ok that makes more sense. Thank for posting these excerpts.
 

Travis

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2016
Messages
3,189
AFAIK, the sugars in some type of pears consists of up to 80% fructose. But I also don't know of a natural source of pure fructose.

Nice. When I had looked into fruit ratios, the highest I found was the Fuji apple at 70%. I think these fruits could help balance starch, which is 100% glucose, and have B-vitamins besides. Fructose does not raise insulin, making a person wonder if diabetes is even possible without it. I was also thinking that perhaps high arachidonic acid tissue concentrations could contribute, as this displaces DHA and lowers transmembrane glucose flux.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom