Fructose Is A Great Dieting Tool

haidut

Member
Forum Supporter
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
19,798
Location
USA / Europe
If you have to lose weight and restrict calories, which Peat does not recommend, it looks like fructose can be a great tool to help you do that safely. This study showed that adding 100g of fructose daily (administered IV) spares protein loss, keeps thyroid hormone high (T3) and prevents the overall negative effects of starvation. The only problem is that the study used IV administration of fructose, so the oral dose will have to be several times higher. Also, it is not clear if with the oral dose the overall effects will be similar/same since all that fructose will have to pass through the liver and get metabolized differently (maybe).
But still, a great boost for the image of fructose!

http://suppversity.blogspot.com/2014/10 ... ctose.html

P.S. The blog post has another image, which shows protein sparing effects of sodium bicarbonate, and potassium bicarbonate + calcium carbonate. This matches well Ray's statement that increasing intake of the alkaline minerals will reduce muscle catabolism.
 

charlie

Admin
The Law & Order Admin
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
14,359
Location
USA
Great stuff haidut. Appreciate all your contributions. :hattip
 

sunmountain

Member
Joined
May 12, 2014
Messages
792
Thanks, Haidut! I am just starting a fructose-only experiment -- no other sugar such as table sugar or honey. Have also cut down fat to negligible. Aiming to jump start body to burn sugar instead of packing it around my middle. Intaking about 3/4 cup a day.

Just wondering if there's anything out there about complications that can arise from high fructose intake if your cells can't take it in (maybe because they are waterlogged?).

Also, as soon as I have it, my stomach swells (it's already at max).

Any thoughts?

thanks
 
OP
haidut

haidut

Member
Forum Supporter
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
19,798
Location
USA / Europe
sunmountain said:
Thanks, Haidut! I am just starting a fructose-only experiment -- no other sugar such as table sugar or honey. Have also cut down fat to negligible. Aiming to jump start body to burn sugar instead of packing it around my middle. Intaking about 3/4 cup a day.

Just wondering if there's anything out there about complications that can arise from high fructose intake if your cells can't take it in (maybe because they are waterlogged?).

Also, as soon as I have it, my stomach swells (it's already at max).

Any thoughts?

thanks

Fructose malabsorption is well known and many people report bloating when ingesting pure fructose. In most cases the stomach adjusts and adapts to the fructose load in about 1-2 weeks. Other than that, I am not aware of any negative effects of fructose feeding. It should be a great tool in replenishing your glycogen stores and once you feel like you are running on sugar maybe you can switch back to normal sugar or add other sources of glucose.
Either way, let us know how it goes.
 

Blossom

Moderator
Forum Supporter
Joined
Nov 23, 2013
Messages
11,031
Location
Indiana USA
When I used pure fructose I noticed stomach upset so I switched to 1/2 fructose with half table sugar which is a 3:1 ratio of fructose to glucose. That's closer to the ratio in many fruits minus all the fabulous nutrients found in fruit of course. Although not ideal it did help me up my fructose without the stomach issues.
 

Peatri Dish

Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2014
Messages
127
Where are you all sourcing your fructose?
I was a bit concerned when I looked into it a while back because it seemed like a lot of it was made by corn. I've heard Ray mention a study of the high fructose corn syrup where there were some extra calories (maybe starch) that was not sugar molecules - that was on a kmud interview.
Should I worry about corn?
 

Blossom

Moderator
Forum Supporter
Joined
Nov 23, 2013
Messages
11,031
Location
Indiana USA
Peatri Dish said:
Where are you all sourcing your fructose?
I was a bit concerned when I looked into it a while back because it seemed like a lot of it was made by corn. I've heard Ray mention a study of the high fructose corn syrup where there were some extra calories (maybe starch) that was not sugar molecules - that was on a kmud interview.
Should I worry about corn?
Pure fructose is different from high fructose corn syrup. High fructose corn syrup still contains glucose but I'm not sure of the ratio. One brand of fructose that seems decent that BP mentioned using is Tree of Life. I think one of the problems with high fructose corn syrup is purity- I thought I had read heavy metal contamination was the main concern. Since weight loss isn't one of my goals I didn't use the fructose much as I was getting plenty of fructose from fruit juice and honey.
 

sunmountain

Member
Joined
May 12, 2014
Messages
792
Thanks Haidut and Blossom, this is very reassuring. I will give 2 weeks on pure fructose and see how it goes, and then if need be, switch to 1:1 fructose:sugar.

My stomach doesn't always bloat on the fructose; sometimes it does and sometimes not. So it's worth a 2-week shot to see.
 

BingDing

Member
Joined
Nov 20, 2012
Messages
976
Location
Tennessee, USA
We kind of got two threads intertwined.

What Ray was talking about re HFCS was a study done at a U in San Diego. They took commercial soft drinks made with HFCS and treated them with acids and/or enzymes to completely break all the sugar-sugar bonds, that is they produced 100% monosaccharides. The result was like 600 calories per 12 oz can.

There are different types of sugar-sugar bonds. One, call it alpha, is what is used in sucrose and we can break that instantly. Even putting table sugar in hot coffee breaks it. Another, call it beta, we can't break down.

The only way to explain the San Diego study is that the HFCS had lots of polysaccharides with beta bonds, and who knows what kinds of side chains. Those are indigestible starches that can feed bacteria in the gut. They don't count as calories in the soft drinks because they are indigestible.

QED, HFCS is not healthy and anything the sugar scientists make from corn in a stainless steel vat should be viewed with suspicion.
 

Philomath

Member
Joined
May 23, 2013
Messages
775
Age
54
Location
Chicagoland
P.S. The blog post has another image, which shows protein sparing effects of sodium bicarbonate, and potassium bicarbonate + calcium carbonate. This matches well Ray's statement that increasing intake of the alkaline minerals will reduce muscle catabolism.

I found this mineral salt supplement online - it contains magnesium carbonate, calcium carbonate and potassium carbonate. I know the carbonates of magnesium and calcium should be fine, but I don't know about the potassium. Would this be an acceptable supplement?

http://www.swansonvitamins.com/cardiova ... grams-pwdr
 

narouz

Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2012
Messages
4,429
Philomath said:
P.S. The blog post has another image, which shows protein sparing effects of sodium bicarbonate, and potassium bicarbonate + calcium carbonate. This matches well Ray's statement that increasing intake of the alkaline minerals will reduce muscle catabolism.

I found this mineral salt supplement online - it contains magnesium carbonate, calcium carbonate and potassium carbonate. I know the carbonates of magnesium and calcium should be fine, but I don't know about the potassium. Would this be an acceptable supplement?

http://www.swansonvitamins.com/cardiova ... grams-pwdr

Phil-
I would be careful with the potassium component.
It says 99mg at 1/2teaspoon.
I might mistaken but I think you have to be careful with potassium.
And it is such a small dose overall...easy to get too much.
I think potassium can affect the heart.
 

Philomath

Member
Joined
May 23, 2013
Messages
775
Age
54
Location
Chicagoland
Good to know - thanks
 

BingDing

Member
Joined
Nov 20, 2012
Messages
976
Location
Tennessee, USA
That's interesting, narouz, may be another mystery. A lot of potassium supplements are 99mg, but the US RDA is 4700mg, or 4.7 grams.

As I understand it, a massive dose of potassium is fatal, it might even be used in lethal injections in the US in death penalty cases.

At any rate, I got potassium bicarbonate powder from Pure Bulk, and mixed it with soda water to make a bunch of bicarbonate ions, a la these threads 1 and 2.

I got a marked drop in blood pressure with it, like 150/90 to 117/73, the next day it was 124/74.

I'm not sure if RP has ever said anything about the 4.7g RDA, but I can't imagine that 99mg is any big deal. I think the supplement companies are just cautious.

And to the bumper, all the bicarbonate mineral concoctions have been good for me, I use them all the time, the carbonate ones not so much. Possibly that is about the body's ability to turn bicarbonate ions into CO2.
 

narouz

Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2012
Messages
4,429
BingDing said:
That's interesting, narouz, may be another mystery. A lot of potassium supplements are 99mg, but the US RDA is 4700mg, or 4.7 grams.

As I understand it, a massive dose of potassium is fatal, it might even be used in lethal injections in the US in death penalty cases.

At any rate, I got potassium bicarbonate powder from Pure Bulk, and mixed it with soda water to make a bunch of bicarbonate ions, a la these threads 1 and 2.

I got a marked drop in blood pressure with it, like 150/90 to 117/73, the next day it was 124/74.

I'm not sure if RP has ever said anything about the 4.7g RDA, but I can't imagine that 99mg is any big deal. I think the supplement companies are just cautious.

And to the bumper, all the bicarbonate mineral concoctions have been good for me, I use them all the time, the carbonate ones not so much. Possibly that is about the body's ability to turn bicarbonate ions into CO2.

Thanks, Bing.
I didn't know the US RDA was 4.7 grams!
I don't know much about potassium,
but I was looking into it a little recently because I've had some cramping issues.
Saw how tightly it was regulated by the supplement companies in terms of dosage per pill.
Saw the same kind of stuff you noted about fatalities at high doses.
Figured...gee...better not get sloppy/over-enthusiastic with that stuff!
 

BingDing

Member
Joined
Nov 20, 2012
Messages
976
Location
Tennessee, USA
Yeah, narouz, there are outpoints about stuff all over the place.

FWIW, I figured 1 tsp of potassium bicarbonate powder into 1 liter of soda water gave 4.2g of K (potassium)/L. So I mixed 4 tsp of potassium bicarbonate powder into 1 liter of soda water to get 16.8g K/L, and it all dissolved fine.

It doesn't taste so great but mixing it into fruit juice is OK, I wasn't too precise but a couple ounces of the potassium bicarbonate fluid per day got me close to the RDA, or closer than I was before. A shot of vodka went into a few of them. ;)
 

freyasam

Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2014
Messages
619
Haidut, I've been thinking about that great comment you wrote in another thread:

"However, the point is to actually BURN the sugar rather than simply feeding ourselves more of it. For people with sluggish livers, many of whom also take niacinamide and aspirin, this is likely to make the metabolism situation worse by fattening the liver even more"

So, if we're not burning sugar due to sluggish livers, would fructose be a good idea?
 
OP
haidut

haidut

Member
Forum Supporter
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
19,798
Location
USA / Europe
freyasam said:
Haidut, I've been thinking about that great comment you wrote in another thread:

"However, the point is to actually BURN the sugar rather than simply feeding ourselves more of it. For people with sluggish livers, many of whom also take niacinamide and aspirin, this is likely to make the metabolism situation worse by fattening the liver even more"

So, if we're not burning sugar due to sluggish livers, would fructose be a good idea?

Fructose is supposed to act like thiamine - i.e. stimulate pyruvate dehydrogenase, which is responsible for "burning" (oxidizing) glucose. That's why Ray said that fructose stimulated its own metabolism and the metabolism of glucose as well.
 

tyw

Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2015
Messages
407
Location
Cairns, Australia
Someone in the 'Ray Peat Inspired' facebook posted a link to the source article today, and I just found this thread. Will post some random thoughts :bookworm:

----

I have been previously critical of fructose in over-feeding scenarios.

Unlike the high fat advocates who usually claim fructose is bad in most contexts, I claim it is only bad when it exceeds an amount which can be handled by the body. Caloric excess is, by definition, above this safe threshold.

And hence why I have been critical of trying to eat lots of sugar, while trying to push up the calories. I think this is the scenario that would most easily lead to all the problems with liver fat accumulation that have been mentioned.​

That article discusses the flip side -- in major caloric deficit (basically nothing but 100g of fructose), directly injected fructose preserves a lot more muscle mass, as measured by net nitrogen balance.

Thyroid hormone was also kept elevated despite the near fasted diet -- T3 dropped by only about 15%.

I would expect that with 100g of fructose a day, liver glycogen was always kept full. With the liver being one of the main metabolic regulators of the body, it being happy means that metabolism continues as per usual.

In that sense, I view fructose as a "Metabolic Gangster" -- able to perform dealings directly with the one of the master metabolic chiefs (the liver).

This is very good when times are tough -- fructose enables normal metabolic function.
It is also dangerous when times are good -- fructose forces all systems to respond in an overly-eager fashion. Overload ensues.

----

Regarding the author's comments about the relevance of intravenous fructose used in the experiment vs oral fructose, I personally think that unless there is some high-level digestive malabsorption issue, AND so long as fructose is kept to doses that are manageable by the liver, then there is not much difference.

Unfortunately, "doses manageable by the liver" is going to be a fuzzy definition. My opinion is that daily doses of fructose equivalent to liver glycogen storage capacity is the upper limit of utility. That would be a maximum of 75-100g of fructose a day. It's probably a good idea to split that into something like 25g doses as well.

Again, the philosophy underpinning my opinions has been "as much leverage as possible using the smallest dose". Yes, Fructose will accelerate glucose metabolism, but it does this very well 10-20% of total carbohydrate intake, and for most people, that's within the 75-100g range listed above. (ie: if you eat 500g of carbohydrate a day, that's 50-100g of fructose a day).

----

One of the direct implications one would be that fructose tolerance would increase when there is a caloric deficit.

A caloric deficit likely puts more pressure on liver glycogen stores. "Supplementing with fructose" during caloric deficits is probably when fructose is the most beneficial.

Note that "caloric deficits" happen transiently as we cycle through the day. The last meal of the day may be when fructose is most useful. But again, this is just speculation, and one will have to put it to the test.

----

Final Note: when I say "Fructose", I should really say "Sucrose", or "sugar-containing foods". Pure fructose is usually not handled that well, unless also consumed with an equal quantity of glucose.

Sidenote: Which is also why I don't like fructose-only studies, which many anti-fructose people use to justify its harm.

One also wonders whether the effects seen in this study would be more beneficial if 50g glucose + 50g fructose were used instead of 100g of fructose.​

.....
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom