Fructose: Back To The Future?

Discussion in 'Sugar, Honey' started by Mito, Jul 19, 2017.

Tags:
  1. Mito

    Mito Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2016
    Messages:
    1,467
    Sugars have emerged as the dominant nutrient of concern. Attention has focused squarely on the fructose moiety as the main bad actor in sugars due to its unique set of biochemical, metabolic, and endocrine responses. Fructose is increasingly being regarded as the principal driver of obesity, diabetes, and their downstream cardiometabolic complications (1, 2), a point of view now widely propagated in popular books (3–6) and documentary movies (7, 8). This special concern about fructose was not always the case.

    The findings of Evans et al. (25, 26) justify the early interest in fructose as an alternative sweetener. In pooling the totality of the highest quality evidence from randomized controlled trials, they confirm that fructose in substitution for glucose or sucrose over a wide dose range has the ability to reduce postprandial glycemic responses and improve longer term glycemic control without incurring any adverse effects. These data dispute the notion that there would be any advantage to the popular strategy (5, 6) of replacing fructose with glucose-containing sugars free of fructose (including glucose, maltose, and their many proxies such as brown rice syrup and barley malt syrup), as a means of mitigating the purported adverse effects of fructose. This strategy would only serve to increase the GI or relative postprandial glycemic response to foods while leaving the calories unchanged or even higher given that glucose is less sweet than fructose and so takes more to achieve the same level of sweetness. On the other hand, the replacement of glucose containing sugars with fructose [which is currently used as an added sweetener in only ;2% of retail products (48)] may have important advantages in safely lowering the GI or relative postprandial glycemic response to foods and thereby decreasing the glycemic impact of diets in people with diabetes or at risk of diabetes.

    The story of fructose reflects the cyclic nature of much in nutrition. The present pair of systematic reviews and meta-analyses by Evans et al. (25, 26) has brought the evidence full circle. Where once fructose was endorsed and then later renounced as an alternative sweetener, it is now in a position to be endorsed again on the basis of the accumulated evidence. Sources of uncertainty, however, remain with the inconsistency and imprecision in the estimates for chronic fructose intake. There is a need for more long-term (.6 mo) randomized trials to clarify the benefits of the replacement of glucose-containing sugars and starches with fruc- tose with the use of “real world” food applications in people with diabetes or at risk of diabetes. In the meantime, the current signal for net benefit means that one can have confidence that fructose is at least no worse than the glucose-containing sugars that it would replace.

    http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early/2017/07/19/ajcn.117.161539.full.pdf
     
  2. Wagner83

    Wagner83 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2016
    Messages:
    3,158
    Gender:
    Male
    The potential problem with fructose is that it has to be processed by the liver and may (according to tyw's research) increase de novo lipogenesis. I don't know if the glycemix index of foods is important.
     
  3. mujuro

    mujuro Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2014
    Messages:
    663
    I was looking at the wiki page the other day and it seemed to me that all the listed health effects refer to "over consumption" and "excess intake". It's annoying phraseology.
     
  4. Wagner83

    Wagner83 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2016
    Messages:
    3,158
    Gender:
    Male
    They just don't know what over consumption is and this is what has been debated here, particulary by tyw.
     
  5. OP
    Mito

    Mito Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2016
    Messages:
    1,467
    It seems Ray doesn't attach any significance to it.

    "When the idea of "glycemic index" was being popularized by dietitians, it was already known that starch, consisting of chains of glucose molecules, had a much higher index than fructose and sucrose." Glucose and sucrose for diabetes.

    "The degenerative diseases that are associated with hyperglycemia and commonly called diabetes, are only indirectly related to insulin, and as an approach to understanding or treating diabetes, the “glycemic index” of foods is useless. Physiologically, it has no constructive use, and very little meaning." Glycemia, starch, and sugar in context
     
  6. Liubo

    Liubo Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2016
    Messages:
    1,216
    Gender:
    Female
    Glucose and lactose both produce a major insulin reponse; sucrose and fructose don't. Low blood sugar = stress to the body and DNA.
    I wanna try a few days eating more fructose and less rice or lactose (only milk with lots of sugar), just to see how this affects moods at work, headaches, and some other current issues.
    Looking forward to lotsa Coke! :headphone:
     
  7. yerrag

    yerrag Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2016
    Messages:
    4,363
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Manila
    Fructose is also associated with increased uric acid levels, which is framed as a negative. Mostly, it is about having deposits of uric acid (or its crystals?) on joints such as in gout. This seems to me like a form of arthritis, and Ray Peat mentions arthritis to be a result of deficiency in hormones such as pregnenolone and progesterone. Therefore, it seems to me in and of itself uric acid is not a harmful substance. In fact, uric acid is an antioxidant and high levels of uric acid are associated with the less likelihood of having cancer.

    I've been taking more cane sugar lately, and drinking more fruit juice, and my fructose consumption has increased. I think I'm starting to see more flab around my belly. I'll have to find out what is deemed an excess of fructose, which is the subject of a thread with tyw contributing a lot of ideas to it.

    I'm waiting for haidut to post a study on "fructose being an antagonist" to cancer. :):
     
  8. tara

    tara Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2014
    Messages:
    10,059
    Gender:
    Female
    Remember that sugars need minerals to be well-metabolised.
     
  9. Liubo

    Liubo Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2016
    Messages:
    1,216
    Gender:
    Female
    Thanks tara, great reminder.
     
  10. ddjd

    ddjd Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2014
    Messages:
    3,107
    has anyone tried getting their carbs only from maltose/glucose instead of fructose?
     
  11. yerrag

    yerrag Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2016
    Messages:
    4,363
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Manila
    I thought of doing that, buying 600 g of maltose and intending to use it for a few days instead of cane sugar. But I didn't push through with it.

    I realized I was wrongly blaming high uric acid on fructose, but it turns out I was just excreting too little uric acid from urine. I figure the body was conserving uric acid just to increase my primary antioxidant stores.

    After a day of it, I reverted back to normal sugar. But maltose doesn't taste as sweet as cane sugar, so it isn't as enjoyable to use.
     
  12. ddjd

    ddjd Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2014
    Messages:
    3,107
    where did you buy 600g maltose. it seems ridiculously expensive here in europe
     
  13. yerrag

    yerrag Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2016
    Messages:
    4,363
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Manila
    In Manila, I could go to Chinatown and buy a 100g container for the equivalent of $1. But it's insane how it's priced in Amazon US - $16! Same thing that's made in China. It's very gooey.
     
  14. yerrag

    yerrag Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2016
    Messages:
    4,363
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Manila
    On the subject of fructose, mainstream medicine also looks down on it because the body would produce fructose from glucose when blood sugar goes way high. It is one other reason they say fructose is bad. But don't you think that if the body produces fructose during hyperglycemia, isn't the body trying to convert glucose into a form that is more readily utilized and metabolized by its tissues? We know that fructose has this property, and we also know mainstream medicine has a tendency to blame wrongly, as it has done with cholesterol. Blaming fructose instead of praising it - so typical!
     
  15. OceanSpray

    OceanSpray Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2019
    Messages:
    58
    Why buy some funky disaccharide like maltose when you can buy a simple dextrose a.k.a. glucose, which is dirt cheap on any European Amazon site.

    That said, if you’re even thinking getting your carbs from any powder be it dextrose or table sugar, you're probably doing something wrong. Let’s be honest here, this sort of nutrition has nothing to do with Peat. And neither has ‘lotsa Coke’. This is why people in this forum get sick and fat plain and simple.
     
  16. Hugh Johnson

    Hugh Johnson Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2014
    Messages:
    1,138
    I don't think this is actually true. All cells can metabolize fructose, and fructose seems to fill muscle sugars stores perfectly fine. Fructose is metabolized by the liver when there is excess in the bloodstream, and I am not sure if we need to worry about DNL. It's all saturated anyway and only happens when there is a surplus of carbs.

    Just use white sugar.
     
  17. OceanSpray

    OceanSpray Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2019
    Messages:
    58
    Why though? When did Peat ever say it’s advisable to eat white sugar, other than for therapeutic use? Just because the mainstream medicine demonizes white sugar does not automatically make it a great food, even though that seems to be the sentiment here.
     
  18. Hugh Johnson

    Hugh Johnson Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2014
    Messages:
    1,138
    The issue is lack of nutrients, and pure dextrose has the same issue. So why not?
     
  19. cinderella

    cinderella Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2016
    Messages:
    696
    Me, for 2 months. Results: insomnia gone, liver function improved, eye bags gone.
     
  20. ddjd

    ddjd Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2014
    Messages:
    3,107
    wow @cinderella . so interesting. this is exactly what im going to try then. @Antonello will also find this interesting.

    what source are you using of maltose? brown rice syrup, barley malt syrup? or have you got hold of pure maltose powder somehow? I can't seem to get hold of pure maltose powder at a good price. I saw 100mg for 12 euros!! crazy.
    ive also heard of something called high maltose corn syrup but that seems only available to industry level manufacturers.

    I take it you're two months into this, or did you do it as an experiment and then stop?
     
Loading...