High Serum Glucose Levels Are Associated With A Higher Perceived Age

[stargazer1111]

My problem with the "fructose causes AGE formation 7 times faster than glucose" (It's actually 7, not 10) position is that the majority of the fructose consumed is either dealt with by the intestinal cells/gut flora or directly by the liver so that serum levels of fructose are probably very tightly controlled.

Also, radiotracer studies looking at what actually happens to fructose in the body have shown that roughly half of it is converted to glucose, a portion is directly oxidized as fructose, a portion is converted into lactate/uric acid, and 2-3 percent becomes triglycerides.

The only location in the body where AGE formation would be significant from fructose might be the liver but I'm not convinced of this, especially if one is getting enough vitamin C/E since they drastically reduce AGE formation.

Whole fruit is poison to me. I can't tolerate any fiber or resistant starch in any amount in any form so this guy's advice to just consume the fiber would not work for me and I think it's silly for a lot of people, especially people with intestinal problems such as Crohn's. In fact, doctors are beginning to prescribe low-fiber/low-residue diets for these people because fiber seems to aggravate the condition.

I have seen no evidence that fructose poisons insects or microorganisms. In fact, the gut bacteria use fructose by converting it into neurotransmitters that play a role in proper digestion via the Shikimate pathway.

This guy doesn't understand the science at all. In fact, meta-analyses show that, in an isocaloric context, fructose is no more or less harmful than glucose when glucose is replaced with fructose. The general number I see is up to 100-130 grams of fructose per day pose no additional harm to humans. Most of the studies done showing harmful effects were overfeeding studies in which up to 60% of calories came from fructose. Most Peat eaters don't come close to that. All of my carbohydrates come from sucrose and that only equals about 34% of my calories which means about 17% or so come from fructose. Nowhere close to what those studies use.

 

[stargazer1111]

Here is another thing to consider:

https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k4644

This meta-analysis shows that when you keep the calories the same and replace some part of the diet with sugar, your glycated hemoglobin (HbA1C) goes down. Glycated hemoglobin is an AGE. If fructose was really upregulating AGE significantly, I would expect it to always increase glycated hemoglobin, even if the calories are kept the same. But, it doesn't. It shows a decrease which means fructose is actually DECREASING AGE formation within an isocaloric context.

 

[Kartoffel]

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 ?

"Animals eat fruit hoping to find starch"...
"The juice should be discarded and the pulp eaten as a source of soluble fiber, pectin, to feed gut flora."

 

[lvysaur]

Fruits are Fake Seduction
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.

peak comedy

he's dead wrong about plants making fructose because it "takes less energy". Sweet fruits are the most energy-intensive plant products on earth, that's why they're virtually absent in dark northern climates.

Insects are not "poisoned by fructose". Microorganisms, also nope. Put a potato and a peach on the counter and set a timer.

He also fails to explain why humans are attracted to this supposedly poisonous fruit, when starchy tubers are 1000x more common and available, both pre-modern and post-modern.

Actually this post reads more like a parody than anything serious

 

[Zigzag]

@Ivysaur you'd be surprised how many people consider fructose straight up poison. I had a long conversation in another forum with some users who claimed "sugar bad" and "fructose poison".

 

[Kvothe]

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

 

[orewashin]

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 ?

Fruit fiber can feed gut flora and cause inflammation, whereas carrot can reduce it and cause facial clearing.

Lately, I've been eating fruit more often as opposed to sugar, and my acne got pretty bad, and weird. It has a large diameter and it's relatively flat and painful to the touch. I guess the term for that is "cystic acne". It's not just on the face either.

It definitely motivates me to eat carrot on a consistent basis. I was once prescribed doxycycline for acne, maybe I should look into getting it back as well.

 

[Vegancrossfit]

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

Lol and this is how people get fooled.

As of AGEs, it’s the same as ROS and all things related to hyperglycemia: toxic mitochondrial energy excess. Too many calories without the nutritional density. It always boils down to this.

 

[stargazer1111]

@Ivysaur you'd be surprised how many people consider fructose straight up poison. I had a long conversation in another forum with some users who claimed "sugar bad" and "fructose poison".

The scientific literature just does not support the notion that fructose is poison. In fact, a fair amount of it shows that fructose is superior to even glucose in certain contexts. I'll have to search for it, but a recent meta analysis showed that replacing any of the other macronutrients (starch, fat, protein) with a fructose containing sweetener REDUCED glycation. This is in stark contrast to the general consensus that fructose is 7 times more likely to glycate than glucose. I suspect the increased glycation was mostly based on in vitro work but am not entirely sure.

I believe fructose is a nutrient and has specific benefits that no other nutrient can provide.

 

[stargazer1111]

Paul Jaminet makes a similar argument in his Perfect Health Diet book and I believe it's incorrect. I'm paraphrasing, but he postulates that we have a sweet tooth because we prefer fat and starch combinations and that the sweet tooth is really us looking for fat+starch.

I just don't believe this claim whatsoever. Sweet and fat+starch are two entirely different flavors and, at least in my anecdotal experience, neither satisfies the other.

 

[Vegancrossfit]

@Ivysaur you'd be surprised how many people consider fructose straight up poison. I had a long conversation in another forum with some users who claimed "sugar bad" and "fructose poison".

I’ve shared that kind of paper before in high fat forums and got banned for such an opinion lol

Misconceptions about fructose-containing sugars and their role in the obesity epidemic

Although the available evidence indicates that the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages is associated with body-weight gain, and it may be that fructose is among the main constituents of these beverages, energy overconsumption is much more important to consider in terms of the obesity epidemic.

Absolutist nerds never cease to amaze me. Everybody is so open minded until new studies slap them in the face.

 

[cedric]

BLOOD SUGAR IN MAN FOLLOWING THE RECTAL ADMINISTRATION OF DEXTROSE

The dextrose retention enema is such a common clinical procedure, and the impression that considerable amounts of dextrose are absorbed after rectal administration is so well established in spite of the conflicting nature of the experimental data submitted in evidence that we considered the...

jamanetwork.com

BLOOD SUGAR IN MAN FOLLOWING THE RECTAL ADMINISTRATION OF DEXTROSE​

ERNEST L. SCOTT, Ph.D.; JAMES F. B. ZWEIGHAFT, M.D.
Author Affiliations
Arch Intern Med (Chic). 1932;49(2):221-226. doi:10.1001/archinte.1932.00150090051006

FullText
Abstract
"The dextrose retention enema is such a common clinical procedure, and the impression that considerable amounts of dextrose are absorbed after rectal administration is so well established in spite of the conflicting nature of the experimental data submitted in evidence that we considered the problem worthy of further investigation.
Clendening1 recommended such enemas, quoting Edsall to the effect that nine tenths of the carbohydrate injected is "taken up by the rectum." Sollmann2 stated that dextrose is "absorbed effectively from nutrient enemas." Lütje treated diabetic acidosis by rectal injections of sugar, and Joslin3 noted that as long ago as 1904, Arnheim reported that acetonuria of diabetic patients was diminished after the rectal administration of sugar solutions. Tallerman4 reported an elevation of the blood sugar curve in some of his cases. Carpenter5 stated that the absorption may be as much as 90 per cent of the dextrose"

 

[Trullo]

Here is another thing to consider:

Food sources of fructose-containing sugars and glycaemic control: systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled intervention studies

This meta-analysis shows that when you keep the calories the same and replace some part of the diet with sugar, your glycated hemoglobin (HbA1C) goes down. Glycated hemoglobin is an AGE. If fructose was really upregulating AGE significantly, I would expect it to always increase glycated hemoglobin, even if the calories are kept the same. But, it doesn't. It shows a decrease which means fructose is actually DECREASING AGE formation within an isocaloric context.

If it's so reactive, it glycates proteins before arriving in the bloodstream.