Is Peat wrong on fructose?

qwazy

Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2020
Messages
77
Fructose consumed with glucose in small amounts from raw honey seem to be fine. However, excessive fructose consumption appears to be extremely negative.

A very recent study "Fructose stimulated de novo lipogenesis is promoted by inflammation" shows that fructose causes inflammation and liver cancer. In the experiment mice either received 70% of the calories from fructose or 70% from corn starch. Both groups otherwise received 10% fat and 20% protein. As far as I know corn starch does not contain any significant amount of nutrients and is nearly all carbs. Hence, Peat's argument that excess calories cause NAFLD is not accurate. Also Peat is very much against starch but the control group did much better than the fructose group. Basically the study found fructose causes:
  • Cancer
  • Barrier-Deterioration
  • Inflammation
Furthermore, fructose stops vitamin D conversion by blocking 1-alpha hydroxylase. The active form of vitamin D is what we need to get the benefits. Note that blood levels of D3 do not drop so a regular blood test is useless.

Lastly, fructose inhibits calcium absorption. So it reduces the supposed benefits from the high calcium intake on a Peat inspired diet.

As far as I can tell these studies are well designed or am I missing something? Is there any good evolutionary evidence for high fruit consumption by humans or our predecessors within the last 3-4 million years ?
 

rei

Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2017
Messages
1,607
What an absurd study to do. No-one has ever recommended loading up on supplemental fructose. But fructose in a 50/50 ratio from sucrose seems to be optimal compared to 100% glucose grains or tubers as long as you make sure the nutrients in the plant food are somehow acquired in another manner.

I'm pretty certain that unless you have gut dysbiosis starch is always better than supplementing fructose.
 

tankasnowgod

Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
8,131
Those studies were terribly designed. Peat recommends eating sucrose, honey, fruit, and juice, not 100% isolated fructose. So, their results really don't apply.

Furthermore, fructose stops vitamin D conversion by blocking 1-alpha hydroxylase. The active form of vitamin D is what we need to get the benefits. Note that blood levels of D3 do not drop so a regular blood test is useless.
Ah, Vitamin D "conversion" to the "active" form. Are you a Morely Robbins fan, perchance? Haidut addressed this on a recent podcast with Danny Roddy (starting at 37:20)-



If anything, this study would likely be a positive for Fructose.

Personally, I have felt better when the "storage" form of vitamin D is high in the blood, which apparently "inhibits" the conversion to the "active" form.
 

Kvothe

Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2019
Messages
586
Location
Newarre
Isolated, pure fructose is almost always malabsorbed and leads to dysbiosis. They even mention that it was dysbiosis and endotoxin exposure that caused the liver damage. Drawing any conclusions from an experiment that is so far removed from reality seems pointless. It might, however, discourage people from using fructose supplements. I heard some people here have tried that.
It would be interesting to see the experiment replicated with a pure glucose (given as a monosacchired) group. Pure monosaccharides in general tend to favor dysbiosis, and it might not be restricted to fructose.
 
Last edited:
B

Blaze

Guest
Fructose consumed with glucose in small amounts from raw honey seem to be fine. However, excessive fructose consumption appears to be extremely negative.

A very recent study "Fructose stimulated de novo lipogenesis is promoted by inflammation" shows that fructose causes inflammation and liver cancer. In the experiment mice either received 70% of the calories from fructose or 70% from corn starch. Both groups otherwise received 10% fat and 20% protein. As far as I know corn starch does not contain any significant amount of nutrients and is nearly all carbs. Hence, Peat's argument that excess calories cause NAFLD is not accurate. Also Peat is very much against starch but the control group did much better than the fructose group. Basically the study found fructose causes:
  • Cancer
  • Barrier-Deterioration
  • Inflammation
Furthermore, fructose stops vitamin D conversion by blocking 1-alpha hydroxylase. The active form of vitamin D is what we need to get the benefits. Note that blood levels of D3 do not drop so a regular blood test is useless.

Lastly, fructose inhibits calcium absorption. So it reduces the supposed benefits from the high calcium intake on a Peat inspired diet.

As far as I can tell these studies are well designed or am I missing something? Is there any good evolutionary evidence for high fruit consumption by humans or our predecessors within the last 3-4 million years ?
You are not a mouse even though they share much homology with humans , so in that light , the study might be an incongruent comparison at best. They are herbivores , we are omnivores. So any use of diet to induce a pathology in them might not apply to us. Also, feeding ingredients in a lab experiment to isolate and view their effect does not in any way whatsoever mimic the nutritionally complete diet that occurs in nature which is necessary for that animal to have optimum function and health.

And , by the way ,Tanka , whats's wrong with being a Morley Robbins fan? I enjoy Peat videos much more but Morley does infer some interesting scientific speculation also.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Hans

Member
Forum Supporter
Joined
Aug 24, 2017
Messages
5,856
Fructose consumed with glucose in small amounts from raw honey seem to be fine. However, excessive fructose consumption appears to be extremely negative.

A very recent study "Fructose stimulated de novo lipogenesis is promoted by inflammation" shows that fructose causes inflammation and liver cancer. In the experiment mice either received 70% of the calories from fructose or 70% from corn starch. Both groups otherwise received 10% fat and 20% protein. As far as I know corn starch does not contain any significant amount of nutrients and is nearly all carbs. Hence, Peat's argument that excess calories cause NAFLD is not accurate. Also Peat is very much against starch but the control group did much better than the fructose group. Basically the study found fructose causes:
  • Cancer
  • Barrier-Deterioration
  • Inflammation
Furthermore, fructose stops vitamin D conversion by blocking 1-alpha hydroxylase. The active form of vitamin D is what we need to get the benefits. Note that blood levels of D3 do not drop so a regular blood test is useless.

Lastly, fructose inhibits calcium absorption. So it reduces the supposed benefits from the high calcium intake on a Peat inspired diet.

As far as I can tell these studies are well designed or am I missing something? Is there any good evolutionary evidence for high fruit consumption by humans or our predecessors within the last 3-4 million years ?
Most of the well-done human studies showed that fruit consumption, including juice, can actually improve insulin sensitivity and metabolic syndrome. It doesn't fatten the liver. Low copper and high iron can cause elevated trigs and cholesterol. A higher fructose diet may require more copper.
 

Mito

Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2016
Messages
2,554
Furthermore, fructose stops vitamin D conversion by blocking 1-alpha hydroxylase. The active form of vitamin D is what we need to get the benefits. Note that blood levels of D3 do not drop so a regular blood test is useless.
That would be a benefit of fructose. Synthesis of the active form of Vitamin D (1,25-dihydroxycholecalciferol) is increased by the the parathyroid hormone (PTH) and it increases blood calcium in similar ways as PTH such as simulating calcium resorption from bone.

"These data suggest that 1,25-dihydroxycholecalciferol is able to increase bone resorption independently of parathyroid hormone."
1,25-Dihydroxycholecalciferol increases bone resorption in thyroparathyroidectomised mice | SpringerLink
 

Cloudhands

Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2019
Messages
988
Most of the well-done human studies showed that fruit consumption, including juice, can actually improve insulin sensitivity and metabolic syndrome. It doesn't fatten the liver. Low copper and high iron can cause elevated trigs and cholesterol. A higher fructose diet may require more copper.
Do u have any idea of how much more copper? @Amazoniac posted something that mentioned 15mg of copper a day, which is quite high
 

Hans

Member
Forum Supporter
Joined
Aug 24, 2017
Messages
5,856
Do u have any idea of how much more copper? @Amazoniac posted something that mentioned 15mg of copper a day, which is quite high
I think he posted something around the range of 2.4mg daily, which is what I'm shooting for.
 
Joined
Jun 16, 2017
Messages
1,790
Those studies were terribly designed. Peat recommends eating sucrose, honey, fruit, and juice, not 100% isolated fructose. So, their results really don't apply.


Ah, Vitamin D "conversion" to the "active" form. Are you a Morely Robbins fan, perchance? Haidut addressed this on a recent podcast with Danny Roddy (starting at 37:20)-



If anything, this study would likely be a positive for Fructose.

Personally, I have felt better when the "storage" form of vitamin D is high in the blood, which apparently "inhibits" the conversion to the "active" form.

That would be a benefit of fructose. Synthesis of the active form of Vitamin D (1,25-dihydroxycholecalciferol) is increased by the the parathyroid hormone (PTH) and it increases blood calcium in similar ways as PTH such as simulating calcium resorption from bone.

"These data suggest that 1,25-dihydroxycholecalciferol is able to increase bone resorption independently of parathyroid hormone."
1,25-Dihydroxycholecalciferol increases bone resorption in thyroparathyroidectomised mice | SpringerLink
+1
 

PhoenixGaia

Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2020
Messages
36
Fructose consumed with glucose in small amounts from raw honey seem to be fine. However, excessive fructose consumption appears to be extremely negative.

A very recent study "Fructose stimulated de novo lipogenesis is promoted by inflammation" shows that fructose causes inflammation and liver cancer. In the experiment mice either received 70% of the calories from fructose or 70% from corn starch. Both groups otherwise received 10% fat and 20% protein. As far as I know corn starch does not contain any significant amount of nutrients and is nearly all carbs. Hence, Peat's argument that excess calories cause NAFLD is not accurate. Also Peat is very much against starch but the control group did much better than the fructose group. Basically the study found fructose causes:
  • Cancer
  • Barrier-Deterioration
  • Inflammation
Furthermore, fructose stops vitamin D conversion by blocking 1-alpha hydroxylase. The active form of vitamin D is what we need to get the benefits. Note that blood levels of D3 do not drop so a regular blood test is useless.

Lastly, fructose inhibits calcium absorption. So it reduces the supposed benefits from the high calcium intake on a Peat inspired diet.

As far as I can tell these studies are well designed or am I missing something? Is there any good evolutionary evidence for high fruit consumption by humans or our predecessors within the last 3-4 million years ?
tbh this doesn't sound unlikely
 

freedom

Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2014
Messages
19
Orange Juice or Fructose Intake Does Not Induce Oxidative and Inflammatory Response

RESULTS—There was a significant increase in ROS generation by mononuclear cells (by 130 ± 18%, P < 0.001), polymorph nuclear cells (by 95 ± 22%, P < 0.01), and in NF-κB binding in mononuclear cells by 82 ± 16% (P < 0.01) over the baseline after 2 h of glucose intake. These changes were absent following fructose, orange juice, or water intake. There was significantly lower ROS generation and NF-κB binding following orange juice, fructose, and water compared with glucose (P < 0.001 for all). Furthermore, incubation of mononuclear cells in vitro with 50 mmol/l of the flavonoids hesperetin or naringenin reduced ROS generation by 52 ± 7% and 77 ± 8% (P < 0.01), respectively, while fructose or ascorbic acid did not cause any change.

CONCLUSIONS—Caloric intake in the form of orange juice or fructose does not induce either oxidative or inflammatory stress, possibly due to its flavonoids content and might, therefore, represent a potentially safe energy source.
 

Daniil

Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2021
Messages
870
Location
Moscow
On the one hand, monkeys eat a lot of fruits and do not have NAFLD. The same is the fruitarian. On the other hand, many people have actually cured their livers simply by giving up sugar. There are even people on this forum who have not eaten PUFA for many years, but they have NAFLD. I think there is more to it. Maybe phosphates or Vit. A. I know a senior citizen who always stays at home and eats tons of sugar. He has no problem. If the problem was in excess calories(did Ray really say such nonsense?), He would have had a bunch of diseases for a long time, lol
 

Daniil

Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2021
Messages
870
Location
Moscow
Also, I would not blindly take copper supplements if you have NAFLD. Many people are toxic to copper, and blood tests are not very informative.
 

mrchibbs

Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2017
Messages
3,135
Location
Atlantis
On the one hand, monkeys eat a lot of fruits and do not have NAFLD. The same is the fruitarian. On the other hand, many people have actually cured their livers simply by giving up sugar. There are even people on this forum who have not eaten PUFA for many years, but they have NAFLD. I think there is more to it. Maybe phosphates or Vit. A. I know a senior citizen who always stays at home and eats tons of sugar. He has no problem. If the problem was in excess calories(did Ray really say such nonsense?), He would have had a bunch of diseases for a long time, lol

I'd argue nobody has "cured" their liver by avoiding sugar. All that does, at best, is bypass the problem. On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence of people healing themselves with fruit and basic table sugar, going back to the 19th century.

Sugar promotes healing, can be applied on open wounds. There is an age-old tradition of solving problems with sugar. Pointing it out as the culprit in degenerative disease has been an invention of the industrial influences who wanted to turn the attention away from vegetable oils and other toxins.
 

hunchoz

Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2020
Messages
36
I'd argue nobody has "cured" their liver by avoiding sugar. All that does, at best, is bypass the problem. On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence of people healing themselves with fruit and basic table sugar, going back to the 19th century.

Sugar promotes healing, can be applied on open wounds. There is an age-old tradition of solving problems with sugar. Pointing it out as the culprit in degenerative disease has been an invention of the industrial influences who wanted to turn the attention away from vegetable oils and other toxins.
Sugar without Fiber is poison. Refined Sugar is poison .
 

JKX

Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2018
Messages
374
Sugar without Fiber is poison. Refined Sugar is poison .
Lol. Absolutes are funny. What kind of fiber? Soluble? Insoluble? A mix of both? How much fiber in relation to sugar and in what context? And to whom?
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom