Fructose And Endotoxin [edwardjedmonds]

[Amazoniac]

Can you define what you mean by demanding? Also, how do any of these studies with pure, refined fructose relate to anything in the real world? Except for some exotic ones, there are no foods containing only/mostly fructose. Fructose is almost always accompanied by equal amounts of glucose. Fructose and sucrose are much better for glycemic control and will reverse reactive hypoglycemia whereas pure glucose
exacerbates it.

Liver is the main processor and a great deal of fructose becomes glucose. If insulin resistance is associated with a fatty/impaired liver, you can't ignore that high-sucrose diets are used in place of starch to make animals reach that state. Search for '"sucrose-induced"/"high-sucrose" liver', I'm sure there will be interesting results, you need to be really generous to dismiss them. There's no point in overwhelming the liver if you can eat a more favorable profile, which varies from person to person but in general favoring glucose.

Fruits are better for glycemic control, I think fructose signals the body that glucose is coming in and recruits enzymes needed for carbohydrate metabolism, there's definitely value in including some in every meal. On the other hand, fructose depends on how much your liver can process comfortably at a time, which makes fruits better for smaller meals throughout the day and starches for both.

Caffeine energizes the liver and should help you process excess fructose. That must be one of the reasons why our giants fare better with it in their diet.

 

[schultz]

There's a fruit called atemoya

Yes, I love atemoya! Better than cherimoya in my opinion. They are insanely sweet though, so much so that when I eat an atemoya and then drink a latte after the latte doesn't taste sweet (with a tbsp of sugar in it).

 

[Wagner83]

Fruits are better for glycemic control, I think fructose signals the body that glucose is coming in and recruits enzymes needed for carbohydrate metabolism, there's definitely value in including some in every meal. On the other hand, fructose depends on how much your liver can process comfortably at a time, which makes fruits better for smaller meals throughout the day and starches for both.

You have mentioned this a few times, do you think a glass of fruit juice along with a meal like cooked potatoes would give the same benefits without the potential downsides of the fibers? Or would it overload the liver all at once? I was hoping the fructose would be aborbed less quickly if the juice mixes with the potatoes in the stomach.

 

[Kartoffel]

Liver is the main processor and a great deal of fructose becomes glucose. If insulin resistance is associated with a fatty/impaired liver, you can't ignore that high-sucrose diets are used in place of starch to make animals reach that state. Search for '"sucrose-induced"/"high-sucrose" liver', I'm sure there will be interesting results, you need to be really generous to dismiss them. There's no point in overwhelming the liver if you can eat a more favorable profile, which varies from person to person but in general favoring glucose.

Fruits are better for glycemic control, I think fructose signals the body that glucose is coming in and recruits enzymes needed for carbohydrate metabolism, there's definitely value in including some in every meal. On the other hand, fructose depends on how much your liver can process comfortably at a time, which makes fruits better for smaller meals throughout the day and starches for both.

Caffeine energizes the liver and should help you process excess fructose. That must be one of the reasons why our giants fare better with it in their diet.

You say that sucrose causes insulin resistance and fatty liver. Can you provide conclusivce evidence for this? By that I mean studies that compare sucrose and starch, not studies that are designed to produce the results the researchers want - where they just force rats to eat 70% sucrose and don't compare it to the same amount of glucose. Studies that use normal amounts of sucrose, or offer free access to it, fail to produce fatty liver, insulin resistance, and the universal claim that sucrose causes weight gain.
I eat something around 300g of sucrose a day (including two quarts of OJ), and my insulin sensitivity is optimal.

 

[Wagner83]

You say that sucrose causes insulin resistance and fatty liver. Can you provide conclusivce evidence for this? By that I mean studies that compare sucrose and starch, not studies that are designed to produce the results the researchers want - where they just force rats to eat 70% sucrose and don't compare it to the same amount of glucose. Studies that use normal amounts of sucrose, or offer free access to it, fail to produce fatty liver, insulin resistance, and the universal claim that sucrose causes weight gain.
I eat something around 300g of sucrose a day (including two quarts of OJ), and my insulin sensitivity is optimal.

Yes the link Amazoniac posted before discussed the issue translating carbs metabolism from animals to humans Evolving Health: Fate of fructose: Interview with Dr. John Sievenpiper . Like he said, people feeding on fructose/fruits/sucrose have smaller meals throughout the day. People who eat starch usually eat two or three big meals. Converting fructose to glucose sounds like a loss of nergy and an unnecessary extra step, but then fructose has other effects of its own, and the nutrients, glycemic index, fibers and the rest all play a part, so it's not just fructose vs glucose.

 

[Kartoffel]

Yes the link Amazoniac posted before discussed the issue translating carbs metabolism from animals to humans Evolving Health: Fate of fructose: Interview with Dr. John Sievenpiper . Like he said, people feeding on fructose/fruits/sucrose have smaller meals throughout the day. People who eat starch usually eat two or three big meals. Converting fructose to glucose sounds like a loss of nergy and an unnecessary extra step, but then fructose has other effects of its own, and the nutrients, glycemic index, fibers and the rest all play a part, so it's not just fructose vs glucose.

There are lots of "unnecessary" extra steps in our biological system, like uncoupling, that turn out to be quite protective. Many studies show that the ATP-depleting effect of fructose has many benefical effects. For instance, the ATP-depletion is probably what's responsible for the role of fructose in balancing P/Ca ratio. By using lots of ATP, fructose decreases serum phosphate and improves the P/Ca ratio.

 

[Amazoniac]

You say that sucrose causes insulin resistance and fatty liver. Can you provide conclusivce evidence for this? By that I mean studies that compare sucrose and starch, not studies that are designed to produce the results the researchers want - where they just force rats to eat 70% sucrose and don't compare it to the same amount of glucose. Studies that use normal amounts of sucrose, or offer free access to it, fail to produce fatty liver, insulin resistance, and the universal claim that sucrose causes weight gain.
I eat something around 300g of sucrose a day (including two quarts of OJ), and my insulin sensitivity is optimal.

It can contribute, I didn't mention it causes. Restriction (not avoidance) can beneficial.
http://www.gastrojournal.org/article/S0016-5085(17)35685-8/fulltext
Do Carbohydrates Turn Into Fat?

 

[Amazoniac]

Yes, I love atemoya! Better than cherimoya in my opinion. They are insanely sweet though, so much so that when I eat an atemoya and then drink a latte after the latte doesn't taste sweet (with a tbsp of sugar in it).

They're tasty indeed.
Multiple Sclerosis (MS) Can Be Caused Quite Easily By Change In Hormones
This guru asks his patients to avoid bananas, Diokinefruit, and the atemoya family during the treatment. Bananas because they're (according to him) neurotoxic; starfruit I don't remember the reason, I think it had something to do with kidneys, possibly related to pesticides, not sure; and the atemoya family because of this:
Annonacin - Wikipedia - This is odd and suspicious, don't know if their avoidance is justified.

 

[Peater Piper]

You say that sucrose causes insulin resistance and fatty liver. Can you provide conclusivce evidence for this? By that I mean studies that compare sucrose and starch, not studies that are designed to produce the results the researchers want - where they just force rats to eat 70% sucrose and don't compare it to the same amount of glucose. Studies that use normal amounts of sucrose, or offer free access to it, fail to produce fatty liver, insulin resistance, and the universal claim that sucrose causes weight gain.
I eat something around 300g of sucrose a day (including two quarts of OJ), and my insulin sensitivity is optimal.

Effect of a High-Fructose Weight-Maintaining Diet on Lipogenesis and Liver Fat. - PubMed - NCBI

It seems pretty straightforward to me. High fructose diets increase serum level triglycerides. That in itself isn't necessarily bad, but we have to consider those triglycerides are being exported from the liver as a result of DNL due to higher fructose intake. The problems arise when they aren't exported at a fast enough rate, allowing NAFLD to result. So adequate nutrients need to be supplied to allow proper export (ie choline), or hepatic lypophagy needs to be upregulated (ie caffeine). There may also be some genetic components involved as well regarding how the liver handles fructose. Personally, a high fruit diet killed my blood glucose, but moderate fruit plus starch keeps me insulin sensitive. Others actually seem to improve their glucose tolerance eating more sugar. Nutritional density and preexisting factors seem to cause a wide variation in how much fructose each person can handle before experiencing adverse effects.

 

[Wagner83]

Effect of a High-Fructose Weight-Maintaining Diet on Lipogenesis and Liver Fat. - PubMed - NCBI

It seems pretty straightforward to me. High fructose diets increase serum level triglycerides. That in itself isn't necessarily bad, but we have to consider those triglycerides are being exported from the liver as a result of DNL due to higher fructose intake. The problems arise when they aren't exported at a fast enough rate, allowing NAFLD to result. So adequate nutrients need to be supplied to allow proper export (ie choline), or hepatic lypophagy needs to be upregulated (ie caffeine). There may also be some genetic components involved as well regarding how the liver handles fructose. Personally, a high fruit diet killed my blood glucose, but moderate fruit plus starch keeps me insulin sensitive. Others actually seem to improve their glucose tolerance eating more sugar. Nutritional density and preexisting factors seem to cause a wide variation in how much fructose each person can handle before experiencing adverse effects.

Arterioscler Thromb 1991 Jul-Aug;11(4):1059-67
Will a high-carbohydrate, low-fat diet lower plasma lipids and lipoproteins without producing hypertriglyceridemia?
Ullmann D, Connor WE, Hatcher LF, Connor SL, Flavell DP. Department of Medicine, Oregon Health Sciences University, Portland 97201-3098.

A sudden increase in dietary carbohydrate invariably increases the plasma levels of very low density lipoprotein (VLDL) and triglyceride. The present studies were designed to test the hypothesis that dietary carbohydrate-induced hypertriglyceridemia need not occur. In the first study we fed gradually increasing amounts of carbohydrate and gradually decreasing amounts of fat to eight subjects. The usual American diet (40% fat, 45% carbohydrate, and 15% protein) was followed in sequence by four diets in a phased regimen, the carbohydrate increasing by 5% of total calories and the fat content decreasing by 5% for each dietary period. In the last dietary period (phase 4), 20% of the energy was in the form of fat and 65% in the form of carbohydrates; the cholesterol content was 100 mg/day. Throughout the study, plasma triglyceride and VLDL triglyceride levels did not change significantly. The plasma total and low density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels were greatly reduced, by 15% and 22%, respectively (p = 0.004). Plasma high density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol levels decreased concomitantly. In the second study, after a washout period six of the subjects were initially fed the phase 4 high-carbohydrate diet for a 10-day period. The plasma triglyceride concentration increased over baseline levels by 47%, and VLDL triglyceride levels increased by 73%. We conclude that although a sudden increase in dietary carbohydrate increases the plasma triglyceride level, patients gradually introduced to a high-carbohydrate, low-fat diet may achieve a significant reduction of plasma total and LDL cholesterol without developing carbohydrate-induced hypertriglyceridemia.

I'm pretty sure @Westside PUFAs said triglycerides can be a way for the body to get rid of fat.

Also:

Peat said in one interview that triglycerides made from sugar or other carbs are "evidence that you are under stress and eating more than you need", and that they aren't harmful.

Dr. Ray Peat: Glycemia, Starch and SUGAR in context!

 

[lollipop]

Liver is the main processor and a great deal of fructose becomes glucose. If insulin resistance is associated with a fatty/impaired liver, you can't ignore that high-sucrose diets are used in place of starch to make animals reach that state. Search for '"sucrose-induced"/"high-sucrose" liver', I'm sure there will be interesting results, you need to be really generous to dismiss them. There's no point in overwhelming the liver if you can eat a more favorable profile, which varies from person to person but in general favoring glucose.

Fruits are better for glycemic control, I think fructose signals the body that glucose is coming in and recruits enzymes needed for carbohydrate metabolism, there's definitely value in including some in every meal. On the other hand, fructose depends on how much your liver can process comfortably at a time, which makes fruits better for smaller meals throughout the day and starches for both.

Caffeine energizes the liver and should help you process excess fructose. That must be one of the reasons why our giants fare better with it in their diet.

Good simple explanation here @Amazoniac. This will help people in the future just coming to the platform understand more clearly.

 

[tca300]

Search for '"sucrose-induced"/"high-sucrose" liver',

Do you think those studies would be done without using vegetable oils? Also fatty liver isn't necessary a bad thing Hepatic triglyceride synthesis and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. - PubMed - NCBI

Haidut posted somewhere about how a somewhat fatty liver can be protective.

ONE MORE THING!!! Do you think if a person isn't eating in a surplus of needed calories that fructose/sucrose would still actually cause any burden? Idk... perhaps I should experament with some dextrose. Although I will feel the need to ask for forgiveness from my lord and savior afterwords.

ONE MORE THING!!! do you think that persons of northern decent might have a compromised ability to process fructose? Seeing how thousands of years of not being exposed to it.. I cant find much info on this particular thought.

 

[Peater Piper]

I'm pretty sure @Westside PUFAs said triglycerides can be a way for the body to get rid of fat.

Right, assuming they're not trapped in the liver, unable to be exported or burned, which is a potential problem with fructose (and dietary fat). Also, in the study I posted, carbohydrate consumption was equal in both tested diets. The only difference was the percentage of fructose or complex carbohydrates. Only the higher fructose diet had raised DNL and increased liver fat, so it's not a case of all carbohydrates in this case, it's specifically fructose, and the diet was isocaloric. All I'm supplying is a realistic real world comparison of how fructose, compared to glucose, has the potential to cause NAFLD in an isocaloric situation.

 

[Amazoniac]

[1] Do you think those studies would be done without using vegetable oils? [2] Also fatty liver isn't necessary a bad thing Hepatic triglyceride synthesis and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. - PubMed - NCBI

Haidut posted somewhere about how a somewhat fatty liver can be protective.

[3] ONE MORE THING!!! Do you think if a person isn't eating in a surplus of needed calories that fructose/sucrose would still actually cause any burden? Idk... perhaps I should experament with some dextrose. Although I will feel the need to ask for forgiveness from my lord and savior afterwords.

[4] ONE MORE THING!!! do you think that persons of northern decent might have a compromised ability to process fructose? Seeing how thousands of years of not being exposed to it.. I cant find much info on this particular thought.

[1] Taxing the liver with PUFA and excess fructose or alcohol at the same time is risky, but plenty of glucose is safer in that regard irrespective of the type of fat consumed.

Dietary sucrose is essential to the development of liver injury in the methionine-choline-deficient model of steatohepatitis

There are so many studies on this that you can select the animal, its gender, age, size, marital status, criminal record, etc. That's why I mentioned that the person has to be really generous to dismiss them.

[2] No doubt fatty liver is a protective measure but can't be painted in good light because it sounds like it's something desirable.
Ectopic fat, insulin resistance and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease | Proceedings of the Nutrition Society | Cambridge Core

[3] Ich don't think so as long as supported by adequate nutrition. If it's fattening up organs, (of course) it's a sign to back off or change the ways.

Now to be equitable, because I totally am:
Effect of Eucaloric High- and Low-Sucrose Diets With Identical Macronutrient Profile on Insulin Resistance and Vascular Risk
There are people here consuming up to 30% of their calories from fructose without adapting their diet to such high intakes.

[4] What is that supposed to mean? That southern people are indecent? If so, it's a quite hemispherialist comment. I'll just ignore it and pretend that you weren't offensive. But seriously, regarding ancestry and evolution, it's probably a vit D issue, Rayzord has talked about it.

"I Have Liver Issues And I Am Not Making Progress"

 

[Kartoffel]

There are lots of "unnecessary" extra steps in our biological system, like uncoupling, that turn out to be quite protective. Many studies show that the ATP-depleting effect of fructose has many benefical effects. For instance, the ATP-depletion is probably what's responsible for the role of fructose in balancing P/Ca ratio. By using lots of ATP, fructose decreases serum phosphate and improves the P/Ca r

Effect of a High-Fructose Weight-Maintaining Diet on Lipogenesis and Liver Fat. - PubMed - NCBI

It seems pretty straightforward to me. High fructose diets increase serum level triglycerides. That in itself isn't necessarily bad, but we have to consider those triglycerides are being exported from the liver as a result of DNL due to higher fructose intake. The problems arise when they aren't exported at a fast enough rate, allowing NAFLD to result. So adequate nutrients need to be supplied to allow proper export (ie choline), or hepatic lypophagy needs to be upregulated (ie caffeine). There may also be some genetic components involved as well regarding how the liver handles fructose. Personally, a high fruit diet killed my blood glucose, but moderate fruit plus starch keeps me insulin sensitive. Others actually seem to improve their glucose tolerance eating more sugar. Nutritional density and preexisting factors seem to cause a wide variation in how much fructose each person can handle before experiencing adverse effects.

Again, what this study shows is simply that huge amounts of refined fructose (25% of calories!) lead to slightly higher liver fat content, which is what you would expect given such a dramatic change of diet in such a short time. It doesn't tell you anything about the real world. It isn't possible to get 25% of fructose from any existing food sources! Besides, even with the ridiculous amount of fructose, there wasn't any significant difference in fasting triglycerides or cholesterol. Triglycerides were acutally slightly lower in the fructose group, and there wasn't any adverse effect on weight.
I haven't seen any well-designed study showing any adverse effects of sucrose or free fructose+ glucose (honey, grapes, etc) on liver function.

 

[Wagner83]

Now to be equitable, because I totally am:
Effect of Eucaloric High- and Low-Sucrose Diets With Identical Macronutrient Profile on Insulin Resistance and Vascular Risk
There are people here consuming up to 30% of their calories from fructose without adapting their diet to such high intakes.

"The high-sucrose diet had 29% higher energy content from saturated fat and 29% lower polyunsaturated fat than the low-sucrose diet."

 

[Amazoniac]

"The high-sucrose diet had 29% higher energy content from saturated fat and 29% lower polyunsaturated fat than the low-sucrose diet."

Yeah, and still..

 

[Peater Piper]

Again, what this study shows is simply that huge amounts of refined fructose (25% of calories!) lead to slightly higher liver fat content, which is what you would expect given such a dramatic change of diet in such a short time. It doesn't tell you anything about the real world. It isn't possible to get 25% of fructose from any existing food sources! Besides, even with the ridiculous amount of fructose, there wasn't any significant difference in fasting triglycerides or cholesterol. Triglycerides were acutally slightly lower in the fructose group, and there wasn't any adverse effect on weight.
I haven't seen any well-designed study showing any adverse effects of sucrose or free fructose+ glucose (honey, grapes, etc) on liver function.

I'm honestly confused by this. A diet of primarily fruit could reach 50% of calories in fructose. A diet that's half fruit could reach 25% fructose. That's not an outlandish number at all. You yourself said you consume 300 g of sucrose a day. That's 150 g of fructose. I don't know your total calories, but at 2500 kcal per day, that would be 24% of calories from fructose. At 3 kcal, that's still 20%. There's people consuming far more sucrose than you are. 25% is not only realistic, it's actually low compared to what some people eat.

Also, did you miss that they had a significant increase (it was almost a 50% increase over the glucose subjects, which is more than a slight increase) in liver fat after only 9 days, or that endogenous glucose production wasn't being properly suppressed, indicating the development of insulin resistance in the liver? Things were trending in a bad direction.

 

[Kartoffel]

I'm honestly confused by this. A diet of primarily fruit could reach 50% of calories in fructose. A diet that's half fruit could reach 25% fructose. That's not an outlandish number at all. You yourself said you consume 300 g of sucrose a day. That's 150 g of fructose. I don't know your total calories, but at 2500 kcal per day, that would be 24% of calories from fructose. At 3 kcal, that's still 20%. There's people consuming far more sucrose than you are. 25% is not only realistic, it's actually low compared to what some people eat.

Also, did you miss that they had a significant increase (it was almost a 50% increase over the glucose subjects, which is more than a slight increase) in liver fat after only 9 days, or that endogenous glucose production wasn't being properly suppressed, indicating the development of insulin resistance in the liver? Things were trending in a bad direction.

I am talking about pure fructose unaccompanied by glucose. The only food I know of containing almost only fructose are jerusalem artichokes. The increase was about 35% when I read the bar correctly, and there are a few interesting things about that. First, they don't provide any absolute values, so we don't know what this percentge means, at all. Then, they don't even depict the mean of the study population but talk about the median value - this reeks of bull****.
If only 25% fructose (let's assume from sucrose) is so bad, after just a few days, then how come that I have perfect glucose tolerance and insulin sensitivity? I should be insulin resistant as hell, if this study has any significance for reality.

 

[Peater Piper]

I am talking about pure fructose unaccompanied by glucose.

It was 25% fructose, 25% complex carbohydrates (starch).