Discussion in 'Sugar, Honey' started by Artifex Bellator, Jan 23, 2013.

  1. Artifex Bellator

    Artifex Bellator Member

    Sep 3, 2012
    While reading an anti-sugar Mercola article, I came across this interesting quote:

    "Fructose elevates uric acid, which decreases nitric oxide, raises angiotensin, and causes your smooth muscle cells to contract, thereby raising your blood pressure and potentially damaging your kidneys"

    So I Googled it. Pages and pages of the exact same quote came up on search after search. This is obviously coming from a particular source, does anyone know the source of this and have a counter argument?

    I would think that a slight raise in BP is a stretch to say it would cause damage to the kidneys. I see they used the word "potentially", to increase the association of sugar and negative health issues. That logic could be used in many different ways to simulate a valid argument, but what about the other parts of the statement?
  2. frustrated

    frustrated Member

    Aug 30, 2012
    The same quote keeps coming up because it's rhetoric.
  3. OP
    Artifex Bellator

    Artifex Bellator Member

    Sep 3, 2012
    Okay-rhetoric. Interestingly, someone challenged Mercola in the comments section:

    I'm sorry but in all my biochem studies uric acid is a byproduct of the breakdown of proteins. Fructose has no nitrogen in it so how can it make urea??
    I disagree with your comments today.
    Any excess sugar which raises insulin levels will stimulate fat storage, but it will not cause a break down of proteins to uric acid. When we have high insulin it pushes proteins into the cells for growth and repair.
    I just took my comprehensive exam for my Masters of Science degree in nutrition. Maybe you have some new information that I don't know about, but for basic biochem I think you are mistaken.

    Mercola answers with this:
    You might want to find a better graduate program to learn from as they are giving you misguided information. Or perhaps learn from people who are leaders in the field and have studied this for decades and written extensively in the peer reviewed literature.
    Sad to see someone so rooted in misinformation

    Here is the article : ... e#comments
  4. OP
    Artifex Bellator

    Artifex Bellator Member

    Sep 3, 2012
    Found this study. I don't speak medical very well, but from what I gather if fructose consumption is part of a normal diet, no rise in uric acid. If however, you consume excessive amounts of energy by 35% in fructose then the rise in uric acid. Do I have this right?

    "Analyses included all controlled feeding trials ≥7 d investigating the effect of fructose feeding on uric acid under isocaloric conditions, where fructose was isocalorically exchanged with other carbohydrate, or hypercaloric conditions, and where a control diet was supplemented with excess energy from fructose. Data were aggregated by the generic inverse variance method using random effects models and expressed as mean difference (MD) with 95% CI. Heterogeneity was assessed by the Q statistic and quantified by I2. A total of 21 trials in 425 participants met the eligibility criteria. Isocaloric exchange of fructose for other carbohydrate did not affect serum uric acid in diabetic and nondiabetic participants [MD = 0.56 μmol/L (95% CI: −6.62, 7.74)], with no evidence of inter-study heterogeneity. Hypercaloric supplementation of control diets with fructose (+35% excess energy) at extreme doses (213–219 g/d) significantly increased serum uric acid compared with the control diets alone in nondiabetic participants [MD = 31.0 mmol/L (95% CI: 15.4, 46.5)] with no evidence of heterogeneity. Confounding from excess energy cannot be ruled out in the hypercaloric trials. These analyses do not support a uric acid-increasing effect of isocaloric fructose intake in nondiabetic and diabetic participants. Hypercaloric fructose intake may, however, increase uric acid concentrations. The effect of the interaction of energy and fructose remains unclear. Larger, well-designed trials of fructose feeding at “real world” doses are needed."
  5. OrangeJuiceManiac

    OrangeJuiceManiac Member

    Sep 1, 2012
    mercola can suck it
  6. nwo2012

    nwo2012 Member

    Aug 28, 2012
    Uric acid is protective with antioxidant properties.

    Mercola is a true cultist in every sense of the world.
    Krill oil is great! Chlorella is great. UVs are great.
    Carotene is great. Spirulina is great.
    All the above are very profitable for Dr M.

    Fructose is bad.
    Selling sugar would not be profitable.
  7. chris

    chris Member

    Oct 8, 2012
    Not a fan of Mercola, don't listen to him anymore. As nwo alluded, all Mercola talks about are topics which can make money.
  8. pboy

    pboy Member

    Jan 22, 2013
    He's ok...better than a lot of others in the sense that be brings awareness about GMO's and other stuff,
    but yea he still peddles a lot of stuff that is completely unnecessary or actually harmful and uses fear as a motivational factor.

    I work at Whole Foods and have been into 'health' for a few years now...and this is my conclusion.
    They industry generally runs on the principle of: "You're inherently infected or something isnt quite right about you
    and your instincts, so you have to constantly be 'detoxing' or 'supplementing nutrients' . If a product doesnt work for you or causes unpleasant symptoms, then they are just 'detox' symptoms (really the product or thing itself caused the symptom and your body was just reacting). Generally most of the products are things that are sold are
    byproducts of other industries that are resold to make more money, or that are derived from a cheap raw material, completely unnecessary, and through wearing a suit and spreading fear, or saying 'science or research shows' scare or convince people into buying and using the product.

    In reality, the truth is people are not 'toxic' , do not need any supplements, and thier own instincts and intuition are
    the best and only real guide. Stress is the real causitive factor behind anybody's consistent lack or feeling good.
  9. Asimov

    Asimov Member

    Jan 19, 2013
    I like he uses Lustig as his reference for fructose metabolism. I've listened to lectures of PhD level biochemists literally laughing (not generalized insults...literally can't control their laughter) at Lustig's fructose=liver disease hypothesis.

    I generally like Mercola, but I don't think he's nailed down his biochem. It is possible that consumption of lots of fructose can lead to elevated uric acid, but it's obviously not the only factor or every fruitarian would have sore 1st metatarsal joints.