Health Outcomes Of A High Fructose Intake: The Importance Of Physical Activity

Joined
Nov 21, 2015
Messages
10,501
This is a stupid review article. Nothing worth our time. Perpetuates a number of stereotypes. The subject of fructose is extremely political. The studies are often nonsensical. This isn’t a study, just opinion. Forget it.

You have to look really hard to find anything nice that is said about fructose. Dr. Peat has some good cites in his articles.

Fructose in studies is often given on its own. Dr. Peat says that fructose and glucose should be used together. As in table sugar or fruit or OJ.

Show me some good studies about fructose please. Not this garbage.
 
Joined
Nov 21, 2015
Messages
10,501
I'm glad to know it isn't a large concern to have high triglycerides. That more than anything its reflective of a perfect storm of high fructose intake and a relatively sedentary lifestyle. And that high triglycerides isn't necessarily associated with weight gain.

Perhaps it's also because I tend to spend time reading the forum and its links that I've become more sedentary, and that's why my weight gain can be easily blamed on being peaty. I've been more active without the need to catch up with the endless "homework" the forum gives me, especially from haidut and from amazoniac. And long threads play a good part also. It's also that I start a few threads now and then, and the time spent in preparing even a minor topic isn't trivial either.

So I can't blame it on milk just yet. And since I haven't replaced my broken scale for a while, I don't really get any warning until my pants starts to tighten lol.

But I've begun drinking less fruit juice already, so I should feel the effect in a month if it's from fructose. The problem is I've begun also to reduce my milk intake. We'll see where this goes. It used to be so easy to just lose weight before. Now, it's harder. Maybe it's also because I'm not getting any younger.

p.s. I noticed that when my heart rate has slowed down before, and saw my weight increase. When my heart rate increased, my weight would decrease and I had gone from not needing a belt to needing one. Lately, my heart rate has gone down as well, so it may just be a matter of getting my heart rate to increase. Yesterday, I noticed a large uptick in heart rate from taking 2 teaspoons of stearyl alcohol.

Does drinking milk lower metabolism I wonder?

Oh yes, I think since Peating I've become free of my frequent allergic rhinitis. I think once I got above a certain threshold of metabolism, I've become impervious to pollen or anything that's allergenic to my respiratory pathway.

But last year I had a month-long dry cough that just wouldn't go away. When I found out that it was poor acid-base balance that was lowering my metabolism, I found the cause of it and that prompty set my metabolism to improve. And I got rid of my cough. I guess I'm able to connect the dots now and that has put me more in control of my health.

Dr. Peat has said in interviews that sugar reduces or eliminates allergies and acute inflammatory response. If you are bitten by a rattlesnake, Dr. Peat says to drink a can of Coke.
 

yerrag

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Messages
10,883
Location
Manila
This is a stupid review article. Nothing worth our time. Perpetuates a number of stereotypes. The subject of fructose is extremely political. The studies are often nonsensical. This isn’t a study, just opinion. Forget it.

You have to look really hard to find anything nice that is said about fructose. Dr. Peat has some good cites in his articles.

Fructose in studies is often given on its own. Dr. Peat says that fructose and glucose should be used together. As in table sugar or fruit or OJ.

Show me some good studies about fructose please. Not this garbage.
I was going to make a similar review when I began reading the article, but I stayed on and I think the authors have been able to mention the merits of fructose, and were even-handed in its treatment of the subject. So I would say the authors gave the study much thought. I didn't like the studies with fructose being given solely, as those studies don't reflect real life situations, but even without those studies, the article is still able to shine a fair light on fructose.
 

Waremu

Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2014
Messages
532
I find the anti-fructose pieces funny. I easily consume an average of 400-600 grams of sugar (sucrose and fruit juice) per day and have yet to see where this magical fat shows up. I do work out, but I wasn’t born as someone who naturally was fit, as I was chubby as a kid growing up, so it’s not like perfect genetics are playing a role here. What is even funnier is that I’ve experimented for long periods of time going sugar free and only focusing on starch or mostly starch and even experimented cutting out milk, and in every case after a few weeks or month the slowed metabolic effects became more noticble. In every prolonged experiment I did, starch caused me to to have a ‘softer’ and more bloated look over sugar. And the gut-serotonin problems were very noticble. And these experiments went on for at least 4-6 months so it wasn’t like I didn’t give my body time to ‘adjust.’ In my experience starch just doesn’t match up to the anti-stress effects of sugar/fruit.
 
Last edited:

yerrag

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Messages
10,883
Location
Manila
There was a time I wanted to go all fructose after reading Ray Peat's articles on fructose. I was frustrated I couldn't find pure fructose except those made from corn, which Ray warns about being very allergenic. Then I asked Ray whether agave nectar would be suitable, and he would say the nectar is mde from an agave part that was allergenic. Then I wanted to eat pear, because it's got a high percentage of fructose at 70%. Then I was reminded that too much fructose would feed gut bacteria too much and lead to gut problems (not by Ray but by a forum member). I guess I was reading too much of the early articles of Ray that were singing too much praises of fructose, and I may have missed later articles of Ray that would have given a more balanced view of fructose. Perhaps they were in newsletters that weren't included in his website. So it's good that this forum exists, as it helps fill those gaps.

Now, as far as fructose and glucose goes for me, I think some people can go all glucose and no fructose, but not all fructose and no glucose. All-glucose, or all-starch won't be a problem for people with good blood sugar regulation, and I'm one of them. And grains do exist in nature. But all-fructose is a man-made product, rife with allergens. It doesn't exist in nature.

And it's fine if people do well on cane sugar and no starch, which is 50/50 fructose and glucose; but that's only because their body can handle it, or because they need fructose to aid in the tissue absorption of glucose, as fructose is easily absorbed even when one finds it hard to absorb glucose due to the presence of PUFA fatty acids in their blood. Well, that is, as long as their gut isn't upset by fructose. But what if one has diabetes, and their gut is easily disturbed by fructose?

And what if one is sedentary and too much fructose consumption is making them gain weight? That's me also (maybe). So would it make sense for me to go 75% glucose and 25% fructose. And if that doesn't cut it, go further down to 10%? It means more rice and some fruit juice/or sugar. So finding a good blend that's right for me is the key.

I think the study's message is clear. The authors are saying a high fructose blend works for active lifestyles, and a low fructose blend works for more sedentary lifestyles. I have no problem with that if I find that message works for me.
 
Last edited:

Jennifer

Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2014
Messages
4,635
Location
USA
I should perhaps shift to vegetable juicing to get my fill of potassium. However, my blood sugar drops and I feel hungry or sleepy shortly after drinking vegetable juices. And it's because vegetable juices are largely free of sugar and full of potassium, and potassium facilitates glucose uptake by tissues.
It could also be the chlorophyll. I first learned about chlorophyll dropping blood sugars during my time following RBTI.
The reason why I think it's too much fructose is because my triglycerides went from 87, as I was just starting with this forum, and it went up to 222 mg/dL the last time I checked, 3 months ago. In the same span, my cholesterol went up as well, though not ad dramatically, from 210 to 234.

I think it had more to do with fructose than with milk, but I'm not sure. What do you think?
How are your temps? Given your cholesterol has risen and last I knew, you were still struggling with hypertension (?), it almost seems like your thyroid is struggling. That might explain the weight gain?

Anecdotally, for a month leading up to my most recent blood work this past April, I consumed mainly dairy (Good Culture's 2% cottage cheese and raw skimmed milk), some honey and shellfish (mainly scallops) and my triglycerides came back elevated (162) while as a fruitarian, they never rose higher than the lower 80s. My caloric intake and activity level were consistent among both WOE, but my dairy allergy symptoms (rash, throat swelling, gastritis etc.) returned by week three of consuming it so I'm not sure if that was a factor. I'm scheduled for blood work in August so it will be interesting to see what my trig level is at sans dairy.
 

yerrag

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Messages
10,883
Location
Manila
It could also be the chlorophyll. I first learned about chlorophyll dropping blood sugars during my time following RBTI.
Is chlorophyll in leaves only? I doubt I'd have a lot of chlorophyll as the only leaves in my veggie juice are from celery, and celery is a small portion of my juice - cucumber, green bell pepper, and red beets/or carrots. But if chlorophyll drops blood sugar, my adding sugar to the juice solves the problem.

How are your temps? Given your cholesterol has risen and last I knew, you were still struggling with hypertension (?), it almost seems like your thyroid is struggling. That might explain the weight gain?
My temps are well within normal range, and doesn't vary much. Just consistenly 36.5C waking up and 37 throughout the day. I still struggle with hypertension, as it isn't budging much below 180/120. It isn't so much a thyroid problem, although my heart rate could get a boost. Some days I'm getting a max of 67. And I wake up usually at 56. But I think the body knows well enough to give me enough metabolism to keep me warm and get my immunity strong, but it's still downregulating my metabolism to not fully support my hair growth. I've pretty much convinced myself that it's a plaque issue that's affecting my kidneys' glomerular capillaries. So my focus now is dissolving plaque.
Anecdotally, for a month leading up to my most recent blood work this past April, I consumed mainly dairy (Good Culture's 2% cottage cheese and raw skimmed milk), some honey and shellfish (mainly scallops) and my triglycerides came back elevated (162) while as a fruitarian, they never rose higher than the lower 80s. My caloric intake and activity level were consistent among both WOE, but my dairy allergy symptoms (rash, throat swelling, gastritis etc.) returned by week three of consuming it so I'm not sure if that was a factor. I'm scheduled for blood work in August so it will be interesting to see what my trig level is at sans dairy.
Probably as a fruitarian you had more stable blood sugar and this keeps your adipose tissues from releasing triglycerides as the presence of some insulin and the absence of glucacon keeps adipose fats from turning into triglycerides. Whereas on the other diet, you were metabolizing fats and this leads to unused blood sugar, and the increased insulin production triggered by the increase in blood sugar (from not being used) leads to lower blood sugar, triggering the release of glucagon, and glucagon signals adipose tissue to release triglyceride to the blood? Perhaps in your case a full carb (with fructose/glucose) diet leads to more stable blood sugar and a mixed carb/fat diet leads to less stable blood sugar, and the absence of glucagon leads to less triglycerides being released to your blood. Just trying to make sense of it, as based on my limited understanding of this mumbo jumbo.
 

yerrag

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Messages
10,883
Location
Manila
Abstract
Fructose metabolism is generally held to occur essentially in cells of the small bowel, the liver, and the kidneys expressing fructolytic enzymes (fructokinase, aldolase B and a triokinase). In these cells, fructose uptake and fructolysis are unregulated processes, resulting in the generation of intracellular trioses‐phosphate proportionate to fructose intake. Trioses‐phosphate are then processed into lactate, glucose, and fatty acids to serve as metabolic substrates in other cells of the body. With small oral loads, fructose is mainly metabolized in the small bowel, while with larger loads fructose reaches the portal circulation and is largely extracted by the liver. A small portion however escapes liver extraction and is metabolized either in the kidneys or in other tissues through yet unspecified pathways. In sedentary subjects, consumption of a fructose‐rich diet for several days stimulates hepatic de novo lipogenesis, increases intrahepatic fat and blood triglycerides concentrations, and impairs insulin effects on hepatic glucose production. All these effects can be prevented when high fructose intake is associated with increased levels of physical activity. There is also evidence that, during exercise, fructose carbons are efficiently transferred to skeletal muscle as glucose and lactate to be used for energy production. Glucose and lactate formed from fructose can also contribute to the re‐synthesis of muscle glycogen after exercise. We therefore propose that the deleterious health effects of fructose are tightly related to an imbalance between fructose energy intake on one hand, and whole‐body energy output related to a low physical activity on the other hand.

Modulation of fructose metabolism by fructose intake and muscle energy output. In conditions of low fructose intake (Abstract figure A), available data suggest that fructose is primarily metabolized in the gut and, to a lesser extent, in the liver. Fructose metabolized in these organs then recirculates as glucose and lactate intermediates to be distributed to the periphery. With increasing fructose intake (Abstract figure B), intestinal fructose metabolism becomes saturated and fructose is mostly extracted by the liver where it is still converted into metabolic intermediates. When total energy output is high, fructose conversion into glucose and lactate remain the preferred, most energy‐efficient disposal routes as both intermediates can provide energy to working muscle. When total energy output is low (Abstract figure C), however, the mismatch between fructose input and energy output forces the diversion of some fructose into lipids. According to this model, fructose deleterious effects on health would only appear in conditions of chronically high fructose intake associated with low physical activity. IHCL: intrahepatocellular lipids; TRL‐TG: triglycerides in triglycerides‐rich lipoproteins.

https://physoc.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1113/JP278246#.XOeTgLlZR_M.twitter

There is a part that really confuses me where it says that fructose turns into glucose and lactate and from there turns into metabolic intermediates, and it says that this conversion takes place in the small intestine. This is the first time I've heard of this, not that I'm saying this is wrong but how come this is coming to light just now? I've not heard this in this forum at all. Nor have I read Ray Peat talk about this. Especially the part about lactate. Aren't we avoiding lactate? And how can something as praised as fructose be associated with something as maligned as lactate? This is quite upsetting.
 

Jennifer

Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2014
Messages
4,635
Location
USA
Is chlorophyll in leaves only? I doubt I'd have a lot of chlorophyll as the only leaves in my veggie juice are from celery, and celery is a small portion of my juice - cucumber, green bell pepper, and red beets/or carrots. But if chlorophyll drops blood sugar, my adding sugar to the juice solves the problem.
Celery and green bell pepper contain chlorophyll but yeah, adding a natural carb source should solve that.
Perhaps in your case a full carb (with fructose/glucose) diet leads to more stable blood sugar and a mixed carb/fat diet leads to less stable blood sugar, and the absence of glucagon leads to less triglycerides being released to your blood. Just trying to make sense of it, as based on my limited understanding of this mumbo jumbo.
Your theory may be right but it wasn't a full carb diet — I ate young coconut, avocados and/or olives daily. I actually consumed more fat on a fruitarian diet.
 
OP
Mito

Mito

Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2016
Messages
2,554
There is a part that really confuses me where it says that fructose turns into glucose and lactate and from there turns into metabolic intermediates, and it says that this conversion takes place in the small intestine. This is the first time I've heard of this, not that I'm saying this is wrong but how come this is coming to light just now? I've not heard this in this forum at all. Nor have I read Ray Peat talk about this. Especially the part about lactate. Aren't we avoiding lactate? And how can something as praised as fructose be associated with something as maligned as lactate? This is quite upsetting.

“When consumed, some of the fructose is converted to lactate and exported from the liver into the blood stream. Several studies have shown this but I really like this figure from a paper by my friend Jorn Tromellen that shows this effect in the context of fructose as a peri workout sugar. This also has been validated by isotopic tracer studies but the direct quantification of percentage is more difficult due to the nature of metabolism of fructose to lactate.”
FB0B75CE-8E7C-4E5B-9C89-B7974EE804B3.jpeg

Fructose: Burying the Boogeyman - Science Driven Nutrition
 

Cirion

Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
3,731
Location
St. Louis, Missouri
Perhaps it's also because I tend to spend time reading the forum and its links that I've become more sedentary, and that's why my weight gain can be easily blamed on being peaty. I had been more active when I didn't have the need to catch up with the endless reading "homework" the forum gives me, especially from haidut and from amazoniac. And long threads play a good part also, even if I'm just reading. It's also that I start a few threads now and then, and the time spent in preparing even a minor topic isn't trivial either.

I do better on days I'm sedentary. Conserving energy (sleeping, no over-exertion) while eating the right foods is the quickest way to recover from hypothyroidism. Contrary to popular belief, exercise usually just makes you fatter, unless you can tolerate it, which most hypothyroid individuals cannot. Well more accurately, exercise increases the stress load on your body which lowers metabolism which in the long run makes getting fat easier. Sure some people might not get fat, but only because they also severely slash calories to like 50% of what their body needs (It's not uncommon for men to cut on 2000 calories, when I'm here eating 4000 lol).

So I can't blame it on milk just yet. And since I haven't replaced my broken scale for a while, I don't really get any warning until my pants starts to tighten lol.

If you need further convincing, here are my top 10 tryptophan intake days and milk is VERY high in tryptophan. Red cells = weight gain, and only one day in the top ten was weight neutral.

upload_2019-5-26_15-22-34-png.13330




There was a time I wanted to go all fructose after reading Ray Peat's articles on fructose. I was frustrated I couldn't find pure fructose except those made from corn, which Ray warns about being very allergenic. Then I asked Ray whether agave nectar would be suitable, and he would say the nectar is mde from an agave part that was allergenic. Then I wanted to eat pear, because it's got a high percentage of fructose at 70%. Then I was reminded that too much fructose would feed gut bacteria too much and lead to gut problems (not by Ray but by a forum member). I guess I was reading too much of the early articles of Ray that were singing too much praises of fructose, and I may have missed later articles of Ray that would have given a more balanced view of fructose. Perhaps they were in newsletters that weren't included in his website. So it's good that this forum exists, as it helps fill those gaps.

Now, as far as fructose and glucose goes for me, I think some people can go all glucose and no fructose, but not all fructose and no glucose. All-glucose, or all-starch won't be a problem for people with good blood sugar regulation, and I'm one of them. And grains do exist in nature. But all-fructose is a man-made product, rife with allergens. It doesn't exist in nature.

And it's fine if people do well on cane sugar and no starch, which is 50/50 fructose and glucose; but that's only because their body can handle it, or because they need fructose to aid in the tissue absorption of glucose, as fructose is easily absorbed even when one finds it hard to absorb glucose due to the presence of PUFA fatty acids in their blood. Well, that is, as long as their gut isn't upset by fructose. But what if one has diabetes, and their gut is easily disturbed by fructose?

And what if one is sedentary and too much fructose consumption is making them gain weight? That's me also (maybe). So would it make sense for me to go 75% glucose and 25% fructose. And if that doesn't cut it, go further down to 10%? It means more rice and some fruit juice/or sugar. So finding a good blend that's right for me is the key.

I think the study's message is clear. The authors are saying a high fructose blend works for active lifestyles, and a low fructose blend works for more sedentary lifestyles. I have no problem with that if I find that message works for me.

Much like tryptophan, EVERY day my starch intake is too high relative to sugar I gain weight, without fail. Also, a pure fructose diet is absolutely not wise, but sugar is balanced perfectly 50:50 so even a 100% sugar diet has both glucose and fructose in balanced proportions.

Finally, starch is not the same as the glucose you get from fruits or sugar. Starch takes a lot of digestive and metabolic energy to convert to glucose. I would never recommend someone do either all glucose OR all fructose. Glucose and fructose are synergestic and both require each other to be metabolized correctly. In my experience, the glucose I get from sugar is much better and easily utilized than glucose from starch.

starch literally = glucose from sugar but harder to assimilate from starches. Ray has said repeatedly that for someone with digestive distress, starch should be zero. I haven't commited to zero starch yet, as I do like to use potatoes to get my magnesium. But I make sure my sugar:starch ratio is at LEAST 5:1. I bet part of the problems with starch is in fact because they are devoid of fructose to help assimilate the glucose.

I easily consume an average of 400-600 grams of sugar (sucrose and fruit juice) per day and have yet to see where this magical fat shows up. I do work out, but I wasn’t born as someone who naturally was fit, as I was chubby as a kid growing up, so it’s not like perfect genetics are playing a role here. What is even funnier is that I’ve experimented for long periods of time going sugar free and only focusing on starch or mostly starch and even experimented cutting out milk, and in every case after a few weeks or month the slowed metabolic effects became more noticble. In every prolonged experiment I did, starch caused me to to have a ‘softer’ and more bloated look over sugar. And the gut-serotonin problems were very noticble. And these experiments went on for at least 4-6 months so it wasn’t like I didn’t give my body time to ‘adjust.’ In my experience starch just doesn’t match up to the anti-stress effects of sugar/fruit.

I'm seeing the same and I also eat as much or even more sugar than you. I do like some potatoes, probably because I get to salt them liberally, and I like them for my magnesium and a few other nutrients, but other than that. sugar all the way.

Here is my sugar intake yesterday

upload_2019-5-27_12-0-55.png


704 gram of sugar and I LOST 1.2 lb of weight yesterday. I also DESTROY the low carb theories with my almost 900 gram total carb lol. Oh and that's while sedentary. I'd be in the 1,000+ range of carbs if I was currently working out.
 
Last edited:

somuch4food

Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2018
Messages
1,281
I do better on days I'm sedentary. Conserving energy (sleeping, no over-exertion) while eating the right foods is the quickest way to recover from hypothyroidism. Contrary to popular belief, exercise usually just makes you fatter, unless you can tolerate it, which most hypothyroid individuals cannot. Well more accurately, exercise increases the stress load on your body which lowers metabolism which in the long run makes getting fat easier. Sure some people might not get fat, but only because they also severely slash calories to like 50% of what their body needs (It's not uncommon for men to cut on 2000 calories, when I'm here eating 4000 lol).



If you need further convincing, here are my top 10 tryptophan intake days and milk is VERY high in tryptophan. Red cells = weight gain, and only one day in the top ten was weight neutral.

upload_2019-5-26_15-22-34-png.13330






Much like tryptophan, EVERY day my starch intake is too high relative to sugar I gain weight, without fail. Also, a pure fructose diet is absolutely not wise, but sugar is balanced perfectly 50:50 so even a 100% sugar diet has both glucose and fructose in balanced proportions.

Finally, starch is not the same as the glucose you get from fruits or sugar. Starch takes a lot of digestive and metabolic energy to convert to glucose. I would never recommend someone do either all glucose OR all fructose. Glucose and fructose are synergestic and both require each other to be metabolized correctly. In my experience, the glucose I get from sugar is much better and easily utilized than glucose from starch.

starch literally = glucose from sugar but harder to assimilate from starches. Ray has said repeatedly that for someone with digestive distress, starch should be zero. I haven't commited to zero starch yet, as I do like to use potatoes to get my magnesium. But I make sure my sugar:starch ratio is at LEAST 5:1. I bet part of the problems with starch is in fact because they are devoid of fructose to help assimilate the glucose.



I'm seeing the same and I also eat as much or even more sugar than you. I do like some potatoes, probably because I get to salt them liberally, and I like them for my magnesium and a few other nutrients, but other than that. sugar all the way.

Here is my sugar intake yesterday

View attachment 13350

704 gram of sugar and I LOST 1.2 lb of weight yesterday. I also DESTROY the low carb theories with my almost 900 gram total carb lol. Oh and that's while sedentary. I'd be in the 1,000+ range of carbs if I was currently working out.

I'm curious to see what you ate that day if you don't mind sharing. I'm starting to lean away from starch more as the summer comes in, but find it hard to picture what a low starch day would look like.
 
Joined
Jun 16, 2017
Messages
1,790
There is a part that really confuses me where it says that fructose turns into glucose and lactate and from there turns into metabolic intermediates, and it says that this conversion takes place in the small intestine. This is the first time I've heard of this, not that I'm saying this is wrong but how come this is coming to light just now? I've not heard this in this forum at all. Nor have I read Ray Peat talk about this. Especially the part about lactate. Aren't we avoiding lactate? And how can something as praised as fructose be associated with something as maligned as lactate? This is quite upsetting.
I once read that when dealing with fructose, there is a process called "inverse Cori cycle". The Cori cycle is when lactate produced by cells of the body is sent to the liver, which converts it back to glucose. Such conversion, as Ray has stated, is very wasteful, since you're using a few glucose molecules to turn lactate into glucose. As far as I know, this is very common during strenuous exercise, since the oxygen supply to the muscles isn't enough to burn glucose all the way, so lactate accumulates. But with fructose, the process is different. Some of the fructose that you eat gets turned into lactate in the liver, not in the muscles. That means the liver won't turn this lactate into glucose( which would waste energy). Instead, this lactate will be put into the bloodstream by the liver and the cells of the body, including muscle cells, will absorb it( I don't think this requires insulin btw), and when lactate is inside the cell, the lactate dehydrogenase enzyme, which can convert pyruvate into lactate and lactate into pyruvate, will oxidize it into pyruvate, and the pyruvate, if you have enough vitamin B1/magnesium/biotin/etc, will be dehydrogenated or suffer decarboxylation and then it will enter the Krebs Cycle and then the Electron Transport Chain, generating water and CO2.

As I see it, the problem isn't necessarily lactate itself. The problem is the accumulation of it. If it doesn't get oxidized, it won't be turned into CO2. That's what happens with diabetics. Yes, they do produce more lactate than healthy people, but also they oxidize much less lactate then healthy people. That's why they have less CO2 and suffer from lactic acidosis. There were studies showing that, yes, a high sugar/high fructose diet increases lactate more than a high glucose diet, but also the high sugar/high fructose diet increases CO2 more than the high glucose diet does. So the lactate being produced from fructose is getting oxidized, so no accumulation. Also, I believe I saw that on a high sugar diet, the activity of the enzyme Lactate Dehydrogenase is increased, and the enzyme Pyruvate dehydrognase is also increased. So I think this is part of how fructose oxidation works naturally.

There was a study that showed that most of the glucose from the diet is first turned into lactate and then turned into pyruvate inside the cell, where the oxidative metabolism can continue. Apparently, the cells of the body absorb glucose, oxidize it all the way to pyruvate, then reduces it to lactate( which for some reason can be present in the bloodstream in higher quantitites than pyruvate), which the study said was a form of energy exchange between cells, and the cells excrete their lactate and absorbs the lactate from other cells, which they turn to pyruvate and so on. Probably cells that are in a rush to get energy are the ones that will absorb the lactate from the cells that can get by with less energy( producing lactate from glucose yields some energy, although not very much, which means those support cells need to use oxidative phosphorylation from time to time). While I was reading the study, I thought "well, lactate is pretty much pre-digested glucose, the cells that receive it don't need to have glucose go through all of the steps of glycolysis, and since most of the energy is produced in the electron transport chain( 34 molecules of ATP!) not much energy is lost if you "skip" the glycolysis part.". The astrocytes in the brain and the hepatocytes could be thought of as support cells, producing quick, pre-digested energy for the cells of the body.
 

Vinny

Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2018
Messages
1,438
Age
51
Location
Sofia, Bulgaria
704 gram of sugar and I LOST 1.2 lb of weight yesterday. I also DESTROY the low carb theories with my almost 900 gram total carb lol. Oh and that's while sedentary. I'd be in the 1,000+ range of carbs if I was currently working out.
Wow!
 

Vinny

Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2018
Messages
1,438
Age
51
Location
Sofia, Bulgaria
I do better on days I'm sedentary. Conserving energy (sleeping, no over-exertion) while eating the right foods is the quickest way to recover from hypothyroidism. Contrary to popular belief, exercise usually just makes you fatter, unless you can tolerate it, which most hypothyroid individuals cannot. Well more accurately, exercise increases the stress load on your body which lowers metabolism which in the long run makes getting fat easier. Sure some people might not get fat, but only because they also severely slash calories to like 50% of what their body needs (It's not uncommon for men to cut on 2000 calories, when I'm here eating 4000 lol).
+1
 

Mauritio

Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2018
Messages
5,669
interesting... what carb sources do you feel more Testerone - ish ?
I actually felt and looked like higher testosterone today with fructose and bacteriophages (life extension) ...again go figure
 

yerrag

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Messages
10,883
Location
Manila
I once read that when dealing with fructose, there is a process called "inverse Cori cycle". The Cori cycle is when lactate produced by cells of the body is sent to the liver, which converts it back to glucose. Such conversion, as Ray has stated, is very wasteful, since you're using a few glucose molecules to turn lactate into glucose. As far as I know, this is very common during strenuous exercise, since the oxygen supply to the muscles isn't enough to burn glucose all the way, so lactate accumulates. But with fructose, the process is different. Some of the fructose that you eat gets turned into lactate in the liver, not in the muscles. That means the liver won't turn this lactate into glucose( which would waste energy). Instead, this lactate will be put into the bloodstream by the liver and the cells of the body, including muscle cells, will absorb it( I don't think this requires insulin btw), and when lactate is inside the cell, the lactate dehydrogenase enzyme, which can convert pyruvate into lactate and lactate into pyruvate, will oxidize it into pyruvate, and the pyruvate, if you have enough vitamin B1/magnesium/biotin/etc, will be dehydrogenated or suffer decarboxylation and then it will enter the Krebs Cycle and then the Electron Transport Chain, generating water and CO2.

As I see it, the problem isn't necessarily lactate itself. The problem is the accumulation of it. If it doesn't get oxidized, it won't be turned into CO2. That's what happens with diabetics. Yes, they do produce more lactate than healthy people, but also they oxidize much less lactate then healthy people. That's why they have less CO2 and suffer from lactic acidosis. There were studies showing that, yes, a high sugar/high fructose diet increases lactate more than a high glucose diet, but also the high sugar/high fructose diet increases CO2 more than the high glucose diet does. So the lactate being produced from fructose is getting oxidized, so no accumulation. Also, I believe I saw that on a high sugar diet, the activity of the enzyme Lactate Dehydrogenase is increased, and the enzyme Pyruvate dehydrognase is also increased. So I think this is part of how fructose oxidation works naturally.

There was a study that showed that most of the glucose from the diet is first turned into lactate and then turned into pyruvate inside the cell, where the oxidative metabolism can continue. Apparently, the cells of the body absorb glucose, oxidize it all the way to pyruvate, then reduces it to lactate( which for some reason can be present in the bloodstream in higher quantitites than pyruvate), which the study said was a form of energy exchange between cells, and the cells excrete their lactate and absorbs the lactate from other cells, which they turn to pyruvate and so on. Probably cells that are in a rush to get energy are the ones that will absorb the lactate from the cells that can get by with less energy( producing lactate from glucose yields some energy, although not very much, which means those support cells need to use oxidative phosphorylation from time to time). While I was reading the study, I thought "well, lactate is pretty much pre-digested glucose, the cells that receive it don't need to have glucose go through all of the steps of glycolysis, and since most of the energy is produced in the electron transport chain( 34 molecules of ATP!) not much energy is lost if you "skip" the glycolysis part.". The astrocytes in the brain and the hepatocytes could be thought of as support cells, producing quick, pre-digested energy for the cells of the body.
Thanks Rafael for explaining this. Yet somehow I feel that I'm still trying to piece this intricate puzzle together. It seems that fructose does something which glucose doesn't, which in one way is good (cells metabolize fructose more readily than glucose), and yet in another way it would be seen as bad in that it is linked to weight gain and to an increase in uric acid. The study says that increased fructose intake leads to weight gain when not accompanied by increased use of energy from exercise, so does it imply that increased glucose intake would be less as likely to lead to weight gain when not accompanied by increased exercise? I need to read the study again, as I really don't know what form of fructose is used in these studies, as fructose in fruits is different from fructose coming from HFCS, as there was a controversial study that Ray has mentioned where it turns out that a lot of calories aren't accounted for in measuring the caloric load from the fructose in HFCS.

I also think that while lactate can be turned into pyruvate, there is a penalty involved in the NAD+/NADH ratio. At a certain point, this ratio becomes low enough where the initiation and full completion of the oxidative phosphorylation cycle is impaired. So, if large intakes of fructose can lead to increasing lactate, and even is lactate is used up by increased exercise, the efficiency of energy production will suffer. At a certain point, lactate will build up. And alternative pathways of energy production will be resorted to by the body, such as the adenylate kinase reaction pathway, and this could lead to increased production of uric acid.

But if increased intake of fructose is not accompanied by increased exercise, there would be an increase in lactic acid in our system. Would this increase in lactic acid reach a point where it would begin to impact our metabolism, that we metabolize less energy, and with this, we accumulate more energy in our system, and this leads to weight gain? So, with increased fructose intake. one is thus faced with the choice of weight gain, with increased lactic acid, or the choice of having to increase exercise, with increased uric acid a result?

So, I'm left with the question: Is it possible to have increased fructose intake without weight gain without having to exercise a lot? If not, should one simply tone down his fructose intake if he doesn't exercise a lot? How much should one reduce fructose intake? And if one were to reduce fructose intake, shouldn't the solution be to increase starch intake, as starch is all glucose?

Even so, how useful is fructose to a person given having to choose between weight gain and more exercise? Can one just dispense with fructose and not have to choose between the two? Especially if one can readily metabolize glucose and does not need fructose to assist in absorbing and metabolizing glucose?

What is the real benefit of fructose over glucose? If such benefit truly helps that person, would it be a good idea then to just find the right blend of fructose to glucose that will work well for the individual? In my case, I eat rice, and I use sugar with coffee and milk, and I drink fruit juices, and if I computed my blend and find that I have a 50-50 blend and I'm sedentary and I'm gaining weight, should I adjust my blend to a 40-60 blend favoring glucose?

I hope to get replies from members who would say they take a large amount of cane sugar and are doing well, with no weight gain and no heavy exercise, and they have also no problem with high uric acid. Then there would be some more discussion on why fructose isn't as bad as the study would make it to be.
 
Joined
Jun 16, 2017
Messages
1,790
Thanks Rafael for explaining this. Yet somehow I feel that I'm still trying to piece this intricate puzzle together. It seems that fructose does something which glucose doesn't, which in one way is good (cells metabolize fructose more readily than glucose), and yet in another way it would be seen as bad in that it is linked to weight gain and to an increase in uric acid. The study says that increased fructose intake leads to weight gain when not accompanied by increased use of energy from exercise, so does it imply that increased glucose intake would be less as likely to lead to weight gain when not accompanied by increased exercise? I need to read the study again, as I really don't know what form of fructose is used in these studies, as fructose in fruits is different from fructose coming from HFCS, as there was a controversial study that Ray has mentioned where it turns out that a lot of calories aren't accounted for in measuring the caloric load from the fructose in HFCS.

I also think that while lactate can be turned into pyruvate, there is a penalty involved in the NAD+/NADH ratio. At a certain point, this ratio becomes low enough where the initiation and full completion of the oxidative phosphorylation cycle is impaired. So, if large intakes of fructose can lead to increasing lactate, and even is lactate is used up by increased exercise, the efficiency of energy production will suffer. At a certain point, lactate will build up. And alternative pathways of energy production will be resorted to by the body, such as the adenylate kinase reaction pathway, and this could lead to increased production of uric acid.

But if increased intake of fructose is not accompanied by increased exercise, there would be an increase in lactic acid in our system. Would this increase in lactic acid reach a point where it would begin to impact our metabolism, that we metabolize less energy, and with this, we accumulate more energy in our system, and this leads to weight gain? So, with increased fructose intake. one is thus faced with the choice of weight gain, with increased lactic acid, or the choice of having to increase exercise, with increased uric acid a result?

So, I'm left with the question: Is it possible to have increased fructose intake without weight gain without having to exercise a lot? If not, should one simply tone down his fructose intake if he doesn't exercise a lot? How much should one reduce fructose intake? And if one were to reduce fructose intake, shouldn't the solution be to increase starch intake, as starch is all glucose?

Even so, how useful is fructose to a person given having to choose between weight gain and more exercise? Can one just dispense with fructose and not have to choose between the two? Especially if one can readily metabolize glucose and does not need fructose to assist in absorbing and metabolizing glucose?

What is the real benefit of fructose over glucose? If such benefit truly helps that person, would it be a good idea then to just find the right blend of fructose to glucose that will work well for the individual? In my case, I eat rice, and I use sugar with coffee and milk, and I drink fruit juices, and if I computed my blend and find that I have a 50-50 blend and I'm sedentary and I'm gaining weight, should I adjust my blend to a 40-60 blend favoring glucose?

I hope to get replies from members who would say they take a large amount of cane sugar and are doing well, with no weight gain and no heavy exercise, and they have also no problem with high uric acid. Then there would be some more discussion on why fructose isn't as bad as the study would make it to be.
No problem! The problem with studies is that they often make conclusions that aren't really appropriate, especially regarding "hot" topics such as fructose, saturated fats, PUFA, serotonin, etc. For example, there was a study that used a bunch of assumptions to try to associate BCAAs with a higher death rate, because they lower serotonin, causing people to eat more, which would, "in theory", cause obesity and, consequently, more death. Although this study may not say it, there are other studies showing that stimulating insulin causes weight gain, and glucose stimulates insulin much more than fructose, so there is a web of misinformation that tries to put carbs in general in a bad light, and making it sound like you have to use "antidotes"( exercise, fasting etc.) to heal the "damage" done by the ingestion of carbs. It seems like the nihilistic view that Ray mentioned to be very famous nowadays: "it's bad but it's necessary".

The main benefits of fructose over glucose are: more CO2, better bone density, less fat oxidation, less ketone body production, less free fatty acids in the blood, increased glycogen stores, less protein oxidation, less glycation in the blood and more cholesterol( increasing the cholesterol: lathosterol ratio, which correlates with lower visceral and liver fat). If you feel better with a higher glucose: fructose ratio, then experimenting with that for a while seems like a good idea, but if you feel better with more fructose, then try that too. I think that if one is gaining ( fat) weight, then lowering fat intake first is the way to go. No need to go zero/very low fat. 10% of your calories as fat should be enough to lower the weight.

I don't think fructose causes more weight gain than glucose, as per the rat study I mentioned, especially when they are used in combination. If the cofactors for carbohydrate metabolism are in place, then ATP, heat and CO2 production will increase and there won't be accumulation of excess fat. Lack of exercise, especially lack of walking, will cause problems regardless of the diet, since walking is necessary for fluid movement in the legs. But just because one's fructose intake is high, it doesn't mean they need more physical activity( unless they are overeating).

Yeah, if one is eating little fructose on a high carb diet, then they will need to use starch or lactose, or dextrose/maltose powder.

Fructose does increases uric acid, although I don't know by how much. The lactate can be used by muscle cells, but can also be used by the hair follicules, brain, etc, and if the metabolism was lowered due to that, there would be a decrease, not an increase, in CO2 levels after fructose ingestion. I haven't seen any study say this, but I think it's plausible that if they measured blood lactate and blood CO2 before sucrose ingestion and many hours after it, although initially both would rise, as time goes on, the lactate would become CO2 and you would end up with normal levels of lactate and increased levels of CO2.

Ray has said in one of his newsletters on sugar that the placenta actually turns glucose from the blood into fructose, and fructose actually maintains the NAD+/NADH ratio high. And it makes sense if we look at how lactate is produced: when pyruvate turns into lactate, it needs to be reduced, which means it needs to be targeted by electrons, and electrons are carried by NADH, not NAD+. When NADH donates electrons to pyruvate, it gets oxidized to NAD+, which can continue to harvest electrons from other glucose/fructose molecules, maintaining the flow of energy. So the NAD+/NADH increases when you produce lactate. I haven't seen any study showing that fructose ingestion causes lactate levels to rise more and more. It increases to a certain level, but it doesn't accumulate.

There are quite a few members doing a moderate/high sugar diet who seem to be alive and kicking: ilikecats, Sourdoughbanana, haidut, Herbie, etc.
 

Cirion

Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
3,731
Location
St. Louis, Missouri
There's also a big difference between glucose, and starch.

Pure glucose is fairly easily assimilated (But I still maintain that fructose is always ideal to have alongside glucose), like in the case of maltodextrin powder in your protein shake or something.

Starch however, even though it technically ultimately becomes glucose, is a different matter. For those with anything less than perfect digestion, it is a strain on the body to assimilate starch.

There could be some argument that pure glucose is fairly easily assimilated, but I don't think I can ever be convinced that starch can ever be as easily assimilated as sugar/fructose.

When I was in perfect health 2 years ago I had lots of pure glucose (maltodextrin NOT starch) and actually was not only in the best shape of my life (very strong at gym, think I was up to DB benching 90 lb db's), but also felt really good. For whatever that's worth. I started adding starch and actually my health started to degrade.

I am continuing to have problems with my health with even small amounts of starch in my diet lately, so I am probably going to go starch-free as Ray recommends. There's a difference between going starch free and going glucose free which Ray, as far as I know, does NOT recommend. He only primarily recommends going starch free because starch is a heavy burden on the digestive tract and hypothyroid individuals have compromised digestion.
 

Vinny

Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2018
Messages
1,438
Age
51
Location
Sofia, Bulgaria
There's also a big difference between glucose, and starch.

Pure glucose is fairly easily assimilated (But I still maintain that fructose is always ideal to have alongside glucose), like in the case of maltodextrin powder in your protein shake or something.

Starch however, even though it technically ultimately becomes glucose, is a different matter. For those with anything less than perfect digestion, it is a strain on the body to assimilate starch.

There could be some argument that pure glucose is fairly easily assimilated, but I don't think I can ever be convinced that starch can ever be as easily assimilated as sugar/fructose.

When I was in perfect health 2 years ago I had lots of pure glucose (maltodextrin NOT starch) and actually was not only in the best shape of my life (very strong at gym, think I was up to DB benching 90 lb db's), but also felt really good. For whatever that's worth. I started adding starch and actually my health started to degrade.

I am continuing to have problems with my health with even small amounts of starch in my diet lately, so I am probably going to go starch-free as Ray recommends. There's a difference between going starch free and going glucose free which Ray, as far as I know, does NOT recommend. He only primarily recommends going starch free because starch is a heavy burden on the digestive tract and hypothyroid individuals have compromised digestion.
My lord,

I went very low fat recently.
Nothing changed. I continued to gain waight (i,m already fat), still struggle with extreme fatigue, crap sleep and the pimples on my scalp are ripe and juicier than ever.
Reading ur thoughts about starch, i,d like to go starch-free for an experiment (keeping the low fat same time).
Advise me pls least offending carb source, affordable too.
For carbs, ATM, i consume white potatoes, white rice, a lot of gummy bears and some cola. A lot of papaya too, it grows here. Watermelon and mango sometimes.
For protein, cheap pork, beef and chicken-leanest possible, and gummy bears for gelatin.
I don,t count calories, eat till satiety. Thanks.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom