Low Toxin Diet Grant Genereux's Theory Of Vitamin A Toxicity

InChristAlone

Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
5,955
Location
USA
But.... why?

Fructose can be oxidized more easily than glucose, and can even be used as carbohydrate when glucose can't. This is one of the main points that Peat makes.








If it is both interchangeable with glucose, more easily metabolized, and also provides special functions that glucose can't, what is the reasoning to favor starch over sugars?
Unfortunately too much fructose can fatten the liver and cause high triglycerides for sedentary individuals. Fructose cannot be directly metabolized by most cells, it has to be processed first in the gut, liver and kidneys, where it is converted into glucose, lactate and fatty acids. But fructose can enhance glucose oxidation and restore glycogen during and after exhaustive exercise. Sucrose is beneficial for exercise but what about for people like me who sit at their computer a good portion of the day? Ray Peaters are using sugar because they become dependent on it if they have developed hepatic insulin resistance. (which might be me after a high fructose diet for 10 yrs perfect blood sugars but high adrenaline after highly refined starches)
 
Last edited:

tankasnowgod

Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
8,131
Unfortunately too much fructose can fatten the liver and cause high triglycerides for sedentary individuals.
Proof?
Fructose cannot be directly metabolized by most cells, it has to be processed first in the gut, liver and kidneys, where it is converted into glucose, lactate and fatty acids.
Peat states otherwise in his letter, that other cells can indeed metabolize fructose, but that the liver does process the bulk of it.
But fructose can enhance glucose oxidation and restore glycogen during and after exhaustive exercise. Sucrose is beneficial for exercise but what about for people like me who sit at their computer a good portion of the day?
Have you tried using sugars instead of starches? Lots of sedentary people here have found benefits to a no starch diet.
Ray Peaters are using sugar because they become dependent on it if they have developed hepatic insulin resistance. (which might be me after a high fructose diet for 10 yrs perfect blood sugars but high adrenaline after highly refined starches)
Again, proof?
 

tankasnowgod

Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
8,131
Many people don't digest fructose properly, it can be a major source of gut irritation , increases gut permiability, causes allergy (runny nose), sugar increases formation of oxalate stones...
I also state to you.... proof?

And are you basing this on pure fructose (which Peat has stated can cause gut irritation), or fruits/honey/table sugar?

Obviously, if someone notices trouble eating a specific food, they probably shouldn't eat it. But I'm not aware of cases where people have problems digesting most fruits, honey, or even things like regular soda. Real sugar soda might even be the best test, as there would be little compounding variables.
 

Apple

Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2015
Messages
1,262
I also state to you.... proof?

And are you basing this on pure fructose (which Peat has stated can cause gut irritation), or fruits/honey/table sugar?

Obviously, if someone notices trouble eating a specific food, they probably shouldn't eat it. But I'm not aware of cases where people have problems digesting most fruits, honey, or even things like regular soda. Real sugar soda might even be the best test, as there would be little compounding variables.
One fruit a day keeps the doctor away , two fruits a day will make you pay ;)
 

SamYo123

Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2019
Messages
1,493
Well if you have constipation, then that‘s an issue on it‘s own.

Do you have constipation nonetheless or only with fiber or certain amounts?

Fiberless diets do work for a while, but I think it‘s not a good idea to maintain on it for long-term.

I had a long period of time where I consumed almost no fiber at all and had horrible gut issues and now I can handle 50-60g of fiber a day and my gut feels better than ever.
I am constipated, with and without fiber, My poo never bulks up.. They are nuggets...
 
B

BRBsavinWorld

Guest
Proof?

Peat states otherwise in his letter, that other cells can indeed metabolize fructose, but that the liver does process the bulk of it.

Have you tried using sugars instead of starches? Lots of sedentary people here have found benefits to a no starch diet.

Again, proof?
Word.
 

InChristAlone

Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
5,955
Location
USA
Proof?

Peat states otherwise in his letter, that other cells can indeed metabolize fructose, but that the liver does process the bulk of it.

Have you tried using sugars instead of starches? Lots of sedentary people here have found benefits to a no starch diet.

Again, proof?
There are many studies showing sugar overfeeding results in de novo lipogenesis which means they gain liver fat.

Effect of short-term carbohydrate overfeeding and long-term weight loss on liver fat in overweight humans - PubMed
Here they used simple sugars and found: "Carbohydrate overfeeding for 3 wk induced a >10-fold greater relative change in liver fat (27%) than in body weight (2%). The increase in liver fat was proportional to that in DNL. Weight loss restores liver fat to normal. These data indicate that the human fatty liver avidly accumulates fat during carbohydrate overfeeding and support a role for DNL in the pathogenesis of NAFLD."


This study was pretty damning, though they started off with obese people so might not apply to healthy people.
"Studies in animals have documented that, compared with glucose, dietary fructose induces dyslipidemia and insulin resistance. To assess the relative effects of these dietary sugars during sustained consumption in humans, overweight and obese subjects consumed glucose- or fructose-sweetened beverages providing 25% of energy requirements for 10 weeks. Although both groups exhibited similar weight gain during the intervention, visceral adipose volume was significantly increased only in subjects consuming fructose. Fasting plasma triglyceride concentrations increased by approximately 10% during 10 weeks of glucose consumption but not after fructose consumption. In contrast, hepatic de novo lipogenesis (DNL) and the 23-hour postprandial triglyceride AUC were increased specifically during fructose consumption. Similarly, markers of altered lipid metabolism and lipoprotein remodeling, including fasting apoB, LDL, small dense LDL, oxidized LDL, and postprandial concentrations of remnant-like particle-triglyceride and -cholesterol significantly increased during fructose but not glucose consumption. In addition, fasting plasma glucose and insulin levels increased and insulin sensitivity decreased in subjects consuming fructose but not in those consuming glucose. These data suggest that dietary fructose specifically increases DNL, promotes dyslipidemia, decreases insulin sensitivity, and increases visceral adiposity in overweight/obese adults."

And if you already have NAFLD then this study shows you what high fructose could do to you:
"Increased fructose consumption was univariately associated with decreased age (P < 0.0001), male sex (P < 0.0001), hypertriglyceridemia (P < 0.04), low high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol (<0.0001), decreased serum glucose (P < 0.001), increased calorie intake (P < 0.0001), and hyperuricemia (P < 0.0001). After controlling for age, sex, BMI, and total calorie intake, daily fructose consumption was associated with lower steatosis grade and higher fibrosis stage (P < 0.05 for each). In older adults (age > or = 48 years), daily fructose consumption was associated with increased hepatic inflammation (P < 0.05) and hepatocyte ballooning (P = 0.05)."

*However*

I have seen studies on choline helping fatty liver and this may be a confounding variable.


I have been doing the 50% carb diet for 10 yrs with sometimes 50+ grams of fructose from sucrose and juice. I have only seen an increase in VLDL and trigs. I cut out most sources of sugar other than some jello and grape juice and I will be testing again soon. I kinda did a flip to 55% fat instead as it stabilizes my blood sugar and helps me get in calories. If I do only sugars and protein say applesauce or juice and cheese I do okay, but I can't eat that way all day long. It's just not sustainable, and I lose weight and get anorexic. Sugar also uses up thiamine and thiamine deficiency causes anorexia and a host of other issues. The same can be said for white rice consumption just to make that clear.
 

Dolomite

Member
Forum Supporter
Joined
Aug 4, 2017
Messages
812
I am constipated, with and without fiber, My poo never bulks up.. They are nuggets...
Hi Sam, it isn't Peaty but I have recently been using psyllium fiber in the form of Metamucil capsules. In the past when I tried it I had no luck, gave up and went on a low fiber diet. But this time I stuck with it and slowly increased the dose. It may take a week or 3 weeks to get it right. Try it but be prepared for it to take some time.
 

tankasnowgod

Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
8,131
There are many studies showing sugar overfeeding results in de novo lipogenesis which means they gain liver fat.
What do "overfeeding" studies (to the tune of 1000 calories a day) have to do with eucaloric substitution of simple sugar carbohydrates in place of starchy ones?
 

InChristAlone

Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
5,955
Location
USA
What do "overfeeding" studies (to the tune of 1000 calories a day) have to do with eucaloric substitution of simple sugar carbohydrates in place of starchy ones?
I'd say many are consuming excess fructose on this forum maybe not 1,000 calories worth but excess in proportion to exercise. Also the third study I cited was just a dietary questionaire and so the subjects were consuming their normal diet. Those with higher simple sugars in their diet had more severe NAFLD. When things are going wrong it seems drinking sugary drinks just makes the situation worse. When things are going right, like I said, fructose can enhance things like glycogen replenishment after exercise. Essential to make sure things are going right when using a lot of sugar.
 

SamYo123

Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2019
Messages
1,493
I'd say many are consuming excess fructose on this forum maybe not 1,000 calories worth but excess in proportion to exercise. Also the third study I cited was just a dietary questionaire and so the subjects were consuming their normal diet. Those with higher simple sugars in their diet had more severe NAFLD. When things are going wrong it seems drinking sugary drinks just makes the situation worse. When things are going right, like I said, fructose can enhance things like glycogen replenishment after exercise. Essential to make sure things are going right when using a lot of sugar.
And who eats starch without fructose? Gotta have sugar/ketchup with it..
 

tankasnowgod

Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
8,131
I'd say many are consuming excess fructose on this forum maybe not 1,000 calories worth but excess in proportion to exercise.
So, maybe don't over consume calories, or taylor them to activity level. Of course, you are just hazarding a guess, at best. I don't think you have detailed food diary info about anyone on this forum, and you certainly haven't locked them down in a metabolic ward to analyze them.
Also the third study I cited was just a dietary questionaire and so the subjects were consuming their normal diet.
Dietary questionnaires are notoriously inaccurate. Especially when you only collect that information only one time, and extrapolate it out over a year, as they did in that study-

Dietary Information.​

Although sugar-sweetened beverages and fruit or fruit juices account for approximately 50% of total fructose consumption,22 we elected to remain conservative in our data acquisition by limiting our dietary assessment of fructose intake to beverage intake only. Dietary information was obtained via a validated dietary questionnaire (Block food questionnaire, version 1998) as self-reported usual eating habits over the prior year.

You can't draw any good conclusions from such problematic data.
 

InChristAlone

Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
5,955
Location
USA
So, maybe don't over consume calories, or taylor them to activity level. Of course, you are just hazarding a guess, at best. I don't think you have detailed food diary info about anyone on this forum, and you certainly haven't locked them down in a metabolic ward to analyze them.

Dietary questionnaires are notoriously inaccurate. Especially when you only collect that information only one time, and extrapolate it out over a year, as they did in that study-



You can't draw any good conclusions from such problematic data.
So let me ask you this then, you believe sugars vs starch can only benefit someone? And how do we quantify what is overconsumption of sugar? What markers should we be looking at?
 

tankasnowgod

Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
8,131
So let me ask you this then, you believe sugars vs starch can only benefit someone? And how do we quantify what is overconsumption of sugar? What markers should we be looking at?
I don't know about "only benefit someone," but I think a lot of people would see benefits cutting out starch and replacing it with simple sugar, at least for something like 30 days. I think starches tend to be the most problematic of foods, sometimes from their inherent properties (like anti nutirents in flour and beans), and also from adulteration (like iron fortification of wheat). Since this is one of the bigger things that Peat talks about, you would think most members of the forum would at least give it a trial, at some point.

And remember, initially I was challenging the idea that fructose itself was somehow causal of fatty liver, independent of other factors. This isn't backed up with short term overfeeding studies, or observational studies where they only assess diet once after fatty liver has developed, not taking into account that it tends to develop over years/decades.
 

InChristAlone

Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
5,955
Location
USA
I don't know about "only benefit someone," but I think a lot of people would see benefits cutting out starch and replacing it with simple sugar, at least for something like 30 days. I think starches tend to be the most problematic of foods, sometimes from their inherent properties (like anti nutirents in flour and beans), and also from adulteration (like iron fortification of wheat). Since this is one of the bigger things that Peat talks about, you would think most members of the forum would at least give it a trial, at some point.

And remember, initially I was challenging the idea that fructose itself was somehow causal of fatty liver, independent of other factors. This isn't backed up with short term overfeeding studies, or observational studies where they only assess diet once after fatty liver has developed, not taking into account that it tends to develop over years/decades.
The inability to tolerate starch I think is a bad sign. It is what has fueled people for thousands of years. Like I said if you have hepatic insulin resistance sure you won't feel good trying to make starch work. But healthy people do fine on starches and the change to sugars I think was a mistake for me.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom