High Serum Glucose Levels Are Associated With A Higher Perceived Age

[ilovethesea]

High serum glucose levels are associated with a higher perceived age

I've come across this study in anti-sugar articles saying that it proves we shouldn't be eating sugar, because it's going to make us all age prematurely.

They don't say anything specific about diet except mentioning the Advanced Glycation End Products (AGEs) -which so many other doctors have said are caused by eating sugar.

BUT isn't high blood sugar a stress reaction, correlated with high cortisol - and wouldn't the cortisol be more responsible for the aged look?

 

[Tenacity]

Peat writes about glycation in Glycemia, starch, and sugar in context.

Oxidation of sugar is metabolically efficient in many ways, including sparing oxygen consumption. It produces more carbon dioxide than oxidizing fat does, and carbon dioxide has many protective functions, including increasing Krebs cycle activity and inhibiting toxic damage to proteins. The glycation of proteins occurs under stress, when less carbon dioxide is being produced, and the proteins are normally protected by carbon dioxide.

The free fatty acids released by the stress hormones serve as supplemental fuel, and increase the consumption of oxygen and the production of heat. (This increased oxygen demand is a problem for the heart when it is forced to oxidize fatty acids. [A. Grynberg, 2001]) But if the stored fats happen to be polyunsaturated, they damage the blood vessels and the mitochondria, suppress thyroid function, and cause “glycation” of proteins. They also damage the pancreas, and impair insulin secretion.

Peat seems to imply that it is the polyunsaturated fats that are responsible for this kind of aging, not sugar, and this happens because consumption of PUFA inhibits the oxidation of sugar and decreases CO2 in the body.

The name, “glycation,” indicates the addition of sugar groups to proteins, such as occurs in diabetes and old age, but when tested in a controlled experiment, lipid peroxidation of polyunsaturated fatty acids produces the protein damage about 23 times faster than the simple sugars do (Fu, et al., 1996).

The epidemiology would appear to suggest that complex carbohydrates cause diabetes, heart disease, and cancer. If the glycemic index is viewed in terms of the theory that hyperglycemia, by way of “glucotoxicity,” causes the destruction of proteins by glycation, which is seen in diabetes and old age, that might seem simple and obvious.

Here one can make that inference that because PUFA causes worse glycation than sugar, and starch causes worse glycation than sugar, sugar must be the optimal energy source anyway (unless there's a special case to be made for SFA, but as far as I know sugar produces more CO2 than SFA and thus would confer more protection to protein).

Peat said this here:

The bulk of the age-related tissue damage classified as “glycation end-products” (or “advanced glycation end-products,” AGE) is produced by decomposition of the polyunsaturated fats, rather than by sugars, and this would be minimized by the protective oxidation of glucose to carbon dioxide.

 

[Peater Piper]

Chris Masterjohn has done some wonderful write-ups on AGEs. They occur independently of PUFA, so we can't throw all the blame there. Methyglyoxal build-up seems like the biggest concern. It increases with a reduction in glutathione (think diabetes or infection). Deep ketosis also increases it, as can a high fructose diet, at least in rats. I think the potential problem with fructose is when liver function is reduced, or you're eating it beyond what the liver can clear. So consuming fructose with a liver already filled with glycogen may not be so smart, and that may be why sugar can increase adrenaline, to empty the liver so it can clear the fructose from the bloodstream by storing it as glycogen.

https://chrismasterjohnphd.com/2016/06/10/start-here-for-glycation-and-ages/

 

[Liam]

The fructose debate has always sat uneasy with me. 'Cooling Inflammation', a blog by Art Ayers has this to say on fructose :

Fruits are Fake Seduction
Fructose is fruit sugar. That is very appropriate. Fructose derivatives are the most central intermediates of central metabolism, glycolysis; glucose is immediately converted to fructose after it enters a cell as the fundamental source of energy and carbon building blocks. Fructose is not normally transported in plants or animals, because it is too chemically reactive and toxic. It rapidly bonds and crosslinks proteins and is ten times worse than glucose in forming AGE (advanced glycation end products) such as hemoglobin A1C. If you feed fructose to cattle, it makes their meat tough by cross linking protein fibers and it does the same thing to human skin. Fructose in fruit is a fake, because it is cheap and sweet. Animals eat fruit hoping to find starch, which is the only polysaccharide that animals can convert to glucose with their own (not bacterial gut flora) enzymes. Starch quickly becomes sweet, because amylase in saliva digests the long chains of glucose molecules of starch into shorter dextrins that trigger sweet sensors in the tongue. Fructose masquerades as starch by binding to sweet sensors a hundred times more strongly than dextrins. The evolutionary advantage to using fructose to make plants sweet is that it takes much less energy and carbon, and it also poisons insects and microorganisms. That is why honey is made of equal amounts of fructose and glucose, rather than sucrose, for example. Fructose in high concentrations is toxic to microorganisms and honey can be used to dress wounds. I can’t understand why fruits, especially juices, are recommended as part of a nutritional diet. At best, fruit should be converted into juice. The juice should be discarded and the pulp eaten as a source of soluble fiber, pectin, to feed gut flora.

Link Here: Cooling Inflammation: Phytochemicals, Natural Antibiotics and Antioxidants

 

[InChristAlone]

The fructose debate has always sat uneasy with me. 'Cooling Inflammation', a blog by Art Ayers has this to say on fructose :

Fruits are Fake Seduction
Fructose is fruit sugar. That is very appropriate. Fructose derivatives are the most central intermediates of central metabolism, glycolysis; glucose is immediately converted to fructose after it enters a cell as the fundamental source of energy and carbon building blocks. Fructose is not normally transported in plants or animals, because it is too chemically reactive and toxic. It rapidly bonds and crosslinks proteins and is ten times worse than glucose in forming AGE (advanced glycation end products) such as hemoglobin A1C. If you feed fructose to cattle, it makes their meat tough by cross linking protein fibers and it does the same thing to human skin. Fructose in fruit is a fake, because it is cheap and sweet. Animals eat fruit hoping to find starch, which is the only polysaccharide that animals can convert to glucose with their own (not bacterial gut flora) enzymes. Starch quickly becomes sweet, because amylase in saliva digests the long chains of glucose molecules of starch into shorter dextrins that trigger sweet sensors in the tongue. Fructose masquerades as starch by binding to sweet sensors a hundred times more strongly than dextrins. The evolutionary advantage to using fructose to make plants sweet is that it takes much less energy and carbon, and it also poisons insects and microorganisms. That is why honey is made of equal amounts of fructose and glucose, rather than sucrose, for example. Fructose in high concentrations is toxic to microorganisms and honey can be used to dress wounds. I can’t understand why fruits, especially juices, are recommended as part of a nutritional diet. At best, fruit should be converted into juice. The juice should be discarded and the pulp eaten as a source of soluble fiber, pectin, to feed gut flora.

Link Here: Cooling Inflammation: Phytochemicals, Natural Antibiotics and Antioxidants

Where am I?? This comment can't be coming from a Peat fan.

 

[Liam]

Where am I?? This comment can't be coming from a Peat fan.

I'm just looking to exchange ideas. If someone could offer a refutation to the Cooling Inflammation post it would be of great appreciation, as I struggle with the fructose concept sometimes. Thanks.

 

[Such_Saturation]

Peat writes about glycation in Glycemia, starch, and sugar in context.





Peat seems to imply that it is the polyunsaturated fats that are responsible for this kind of aging, not sugar, and this happens because consumption of PUFA inhibits the oxidation of sugar and decreases CO2 in the body.





Here one can make that inference that because PUFA causes worse glycation than sugar, and starch causes worse glycation than sugar, sugar must be the optimal energy source anyway (unless there's a special case to be made for SFA, but as far as I know sugar produces more CO2 than SFA and thus would confer more protection to protein).

Peat said this here:

This post needs to be sticky'd lol

 

[Such_Saturation]

The juice should be discarded and the pulp eaten as a source of soluble fiber, pectin, to feed gut flora.

Dude, this guy must be eatin' so good for so cheap by dumpster diving

 

[DaveFoster]

I'm just looking to exchange ideas. If someone could offer a refutation to the Cooling Inflammation post it would be of great appreciation, as I struggle with the fructose concept sometimes. Thanks.

Glucose tends to be more inflammatory than sucrose, and sucrose tends to be less inflammatory than a glucose/fructose mixture.

 

[Tarmander]

Dude, this guy must be eatin' so good for so cheap by dumpster diving

It's a big conspiracy man, they throw it away so you think it's bad, but it's good

 

[Liam]

Dude, this guy must be eatin' so good for so cheap by dumpster diving

Do you have any ideas to refute the post?

 

[Liam]

It's a big conspiracy man, they throw it away so you think it's bad, but it's good

Couldn't that be said of connective tissue, bones and organ meat?

 

[DaveFoster]

Do you have any ideas to refute the post?

Differential effects of cream, glucose, and orange juice on inflammation, endotoxin, and the expression of Toll-like receptor-4 and suppressor of c... - PubMed - NCBI

OBJECTIVE:
We have recently shown that a high-fat high-carbohydrate (HFHC) meal induces an increase in plasma concentrations of endotoxin (lipopolysaccharide [LPS]) and the expression of Toll-like receptor-4 (TLR-4) and suppresser of cytokine signaling-3 (SOCS3) in mononuclear cells (MNCs) in addition to oxidative stress and cellular inflammation. Saturated fat and carbohydrates, components of the HFHC meal, known to induce oxidative stress and inflammation, also induce an increase in LPS, TLR-4, and SOCS3.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS:
Fasting normal subjects were given 300-calorie drinks of either glucose, saturated fat as cream, orange juice, or only water to ingest. Blood samples were obtained at 0, 1, 3, and 5 h for analysis.

RESULTS:
Indexes of inflammation including nuclear factor-kappaB (NF-kappaB) binding, and the expression of SOCS3, tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-alpha), and interleukin (IL)-1beta in MNCs, increased significantly after glucose and cream intake, but TLR-4 expression and plasma LPS concentrations increased only after cream intake. The intake of orange juice or water did not induce any change in any of the indexes measured.

CONCLUSIONS:
Although both glucose and cream induce NF-kappaB binding and an increase in the expression of SOCS3, TNF-alpha, and IL-1beta in MNCs, only cream caused an increase in LPS concentration and TLR-4 expression. Equicaloric amounts of orange juice or water did not induce a change in any of these indexes. These changes are relevant to the pathogenesis of atherosclerosis and insulin resistance.

Acute effects of feeding fructose, glucose and sucrose on blood lipid levels and systemic inflammation

Background
Recent studies have demonstrated a relationship between fructose consumption and risk of developing metabolic syndrome. Mechanisms by which dietary fructose mediates metabolic changes are poorly understood. This study compared the effects of fructose, glucose and sucrose consumption on post-postprandial lipemia and low grade inflammation measured as hs-CRP.

Methods
This was a randomized, single blinded, cross-over trial involving healthy subjects (n = 14). After an overnight fast, participants were given one of 3 different isocaloric drinks, containing 50 g of either fructose or glucose or sucrose dissolved in water. Blood samples were collected at baseline, 30, 60 and 120 minutes post intervention for the analysis of blood lipids, glucose, insulin and high sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP).

Results
Glucose and sucrose supplementation initially resulted in a significant increase in glucose and insulin levels compared to fructose supplementation and returned to near baseline values within 2 hours. Change in plasma cholesterol, LDL and HDL-cholesterol (measured as area under curve, AUC) was significantly higher when participants consumed fructose compared with glucose or sucrose (P < 0.05). AUC for plasma triglyceride levels however remained unchanged regardless of the dietary intervention. Change in AUC for hs-CRP was also significantly higher in subjects consuming fructose compared with those consuming glucose (P < 0.05), but not sucrose (P = 0.07).

Conclusion
This study demonstrates that fructose as a sole source of energy modulates plasma lipids and hsCRP levels in healthy individuals. The significance of increase in HDL-cholesterol with a concurrent increase in LDL-cholesterol and elevated hs-CRP levels remains to be delineated when considering health effects of feeding fructose-rich diets.

No one eats fructose in the absence of glucose, unless you use fructose powder.

 

[Such_Saturation]

Couldn't that be said of connective tissue, bones and organ meat?

Actually normal people drink juice with pulp... It even costs more at the store with the pulp... In fact it is the attitude of separating nature's product and saying half is good and half is bad that inspires me more suspicion than the actual love of the fiber in itself.

 

[InChristAlone]

The fructose debate has always sat uneasy with me. 'Cooling Inflammation', a blog by Art Ayers has this to say on fructose :

Fruits are Fake Seduction
Fructose is fruit sugar. That is very appropriate. Fructose derivatives are the most central intermediates of central metabolism, glycolysis; glucose is immediately converted to fructose after it enters a cell as the fundamental source of energy and carbon building blocks. Fructose is not normally transported in plants or animals, because it is too chemically reactive and toxic. It rapidly bonds and crosslinks proteins and is ten times worse than glucose in forming AGE (advanced glycation end products) such as hemoglobin A1C. If you feed fructose to cattle, it makes their meat tough by cross linking protein fibers and it does the same thing to human skin. Fructose in fruit is a fake, because it is cheap and sweet. Animals eat fruit hoping to find starch, which is the only polysaccharide that animals can convert to glucose with their own (not bacterial gut flora) enzymes. Starch quickly becomes sweet, because amylase in saliva digests the long chains of glucose molecules of starch into shorter dextrins that trigger sweet sensors in the tongue. Fructose masquerades as starch by binding to sweet sensors a hundred times more strongly than dextrins. The evolutionary advantage to using fructose to make plants sweet is that it takes much less energy and carbon, and it also poisons insects and microorganisms. That is why honey is made of equal amounts of fructose and glucose, rather than sucrose, for example. Fructose in high concentrations is toxic to microorganisms and honey can be used to dress wounds. I can’t understand why fruits, especially juices, are recommended as part of a nutritional diet. At best, fruit should be converted into juice. The juice should be discarded and the pulp eaten as a source of soluble fiber, pectin, to feed gut flora.

Link Here: Cooling Inflammation: Phytochemicals, Natural Antibiotics and Antioxidants

I would believe Chris Masterjohn PhD over this blog. Here is his post on AGE's. He says it has nothing to do with eating sugar. https://chrismasterjohnphd.com/2011/10/07/where-do-most-ages-come-from-o/

Regardless of how important these different pathways are, it would be quite silly to blame AGEs on “carbohydrate,” or “protein,” or “fat,” because these dicarbonyls cause nary a whiff of harm unless they slip past our [URL='http://www.westonaprice.org/blogs/cmasterjohn/tag/glutathione/']good friend glutathione

....
.....This suggests that zinc, insulin, and glutathione are critical components of our defense against dicarbonyls and the AGEs they produce.

[/URL]

 

[Liam]

I would believe Chris Masterjohn PhD over this blog. Here is his post on AGE's. He says it has nothing to do with eating sugar. https://chrismasterjohnphd.com/2011/10/07/where-do-most-ages-come-from-o/
https://chrismasterjohnphd.com/2011/10/07/where-do-most-ages-come-from-o/

Awesome thanks, i will give it a read.

 

[Peater Piper]

I would believe Chris Masterjohn PhD over this blog. Here is his post on AGE's. He says it has nothing to do with eating sugar. https://chrismasterjohnphd.com/2011/10/07/where-do-most-ages-come-from-o/

I don't know if he gives sugar a complete pass. He's talked about fructose being more prone to fattening up the liver, and that fructose is much more prone to AGE formation than glucose, however, he thinks methylglyoxal is the biggest culprit. His recommendation seems to be maintaining a certain amount of leanness so that insulin sensitivity is high and glutathione synthesis is maximized, then getting carbs mostly from whole foods where you'll also be provided with other antioxidant support and the necessary components for glutathione synthesis.

 

[stargazer1111]

I take vitamin C to bowel tolerance. Vitamin C has been shown in studies I have read to reduce glycation by about 50%. Just a thought.

 

[Waynish]

Interesting thread. I found this when doing related reading:
"Methylglyoxal—A Potential Risk Factor of Manuka Honey in Healing of Diabetic Ulcers"
https://www.hindawi.com/journals/ecam/2011/295494/

 

[Ruslan Andreev]

The fructose debate has always sat uneasy with me. 'Cooling Inflammation', a blog by Art Ayers has this to say on fructose :

Fruits are Fake Seduction
Fructose is fruit sugar. That is very appropriate. Fructose derivatives are the most central intermediates of central metabolism, glycolysis; glucose is immediately converted to fructose after it enters a cell as the fundamental source of energy and carbon building blocks. Fructose is not normally transported in plants or animals, because it is too chemically reactive and toxic. It rapidly bonds and crosslinks proteins and is ten times worse than glucose in forming AGE (advanced glycation end products) such as hemoglobin A1C. If you feed fructose to cattle, it makes their meat tough by cross linking protein fibers and it does the same thing to human skin. Fructose in fruit is a fake, because it is cheap and sweet. Animals eat fruit hoping to find starch, which is the only polysaccharide that animals can convert to glucose with their own (not bacterial gut flora) enzymes. Starch quickly becomes sweet, because amylase in saliva digests the long chains of glucose molecules of starch into shorter dextrins that trigger sweet sensors in the tongue. Fructose masquerades as starch by binding to sweet sensors a hundred times more strongly than dextrins. The evolutionary advantage to using fructose to make plants sweet is that it takes much less energy and carbon, and it also poisons insects and microorganisms. That is why honey is made of equal amounts of fructose and glucose, rather than sucrose, for example. Fructose in high concentrations is toxic to microorganisms and honey can be used to dress wounds. I can’t understand why fruits, especially juices, are recommended as part of a nutritional diet. At best, fruit should be converted into juice. The juice should be discarded and the pulp eaten as a source of soluble fiber, pectin, to feed gut flora.

Link Here: Cooling Inflammation: Phytochemicals, Natural Antibiotics and Antioxidants

Absolutely brilliant post. I have been searching for years for a post like this to explain it all about sugars, I had the feeling that somethin works not right as my friend was full of acne when he consumed fruits. For some reason I believe that fruits can... be bad for you, anyone else opinion on this article ?