Questions On Sugar

[pone]

You just made me realize some important points by cross referencing the symbol carbohydrate diet (SCD):

* Many fruits contain glucose and fructose as monosaccharides rather than as sucrose. Many of the gastro studies around SCD diets confirm that - for whatever reason - sucrose tends to not digest well for some people and seems to cause endotoxin issues. Monosaccharides digest much better for such patients. This is why fruit may be a better source of carbs in the diet.

* NOT ALL FRUIT is free of sucrose. So you actually have to research that issue if you want to be a purist. Berries tend to be very low on sucrose as well as very nutritious so those are always a good choice. Many fruits like apple, banana, pineapple, mangoes contain high sucrose loads, so those foods are probably non optimal for someone who has gastro IBD type issues.

Do you have any good references to studies on the endotoxin issue? I think that is a key insight.

Why does Peat avoid saturated and monounsaturated fats as a primary calorie source? I understand the issues with polyunsaturated fats.

SCD=Specific Carbohydrate Diet?
My understanding is that for many people, disaccharides (eg sucrose) digest much easier (and faster) than starches, and that's good enough for most people. But for a few people, breaking down disaccharides can be a problem (eg low sucrase production), and that's where the distinctions you make between free monosaccharides vs surose in fruits can be important. Some fruits contain a bit of starch (eg bananas, some apples), so that can be an issue for some people too. Berries have some good things going for them, though the skins and seeds can be a negative, and I'd find it hard to eat enough of them to meet calorie needs, even if I could afford them.

I don't have refs to specific studies about endotoxins, but Peat talks about them quite a bit. I got the impression that the toxic effects of lipopolysaccharides (endotoxin) were well established scientifically. You could search his website for those two key words, if you are interested.

Why sugar beats fat as main fuel:
1. All natural fat sources contain some PUFAs, so if you eat a lot of fat, even if it is mostly saturated, you get more than ideal amounts of unsaturated fats.
The unsaturation is a problem, so polyunsaturated fats have more unsaturated bonds, but monounsaturated fats also have some.
2. Also, CO2 production is very important for many metabolic processes, including maintaining a good supply of oxygen to tissues. If I've understood it right, oxidising fat produces less CO2 than oxidising sugars, so burning sugars tends to be more supportive of metabolism.
3. Some tissues, including importantly the brain, require sugar for fuel. If you don't eat enough sugar, stress hormones are called forth to create it from protein. This tends to have catabolic effects.
4. Sugar is required for some metabolic processes, eg to convert T4 to T3, and to support generation of pancreatic beta cells. So too little sugar can reduce T3 levels, and worsen diabetic issues.
5. Randle 'cycle': high levels of circulating fats tend to suppress sugar oxidation, and can worsen 'insulin-resistance' type problems.
6. ...?
I hope others will correct me if I've got these wrong, or add what I've missed.

Thank you for the information on sucrase. That explains a lot clearly. And you really expanded my understanding of this topic by that little fact. I now understand exactly why fruit that is low on sucrose is so well tolerated by IBD patients!

Not all fat sources are high on polyunsaturated fats. Grassfed beef is less than 2% polyfat:
http://www.westonaprice.org/health-topi ... ef-tallow/

Coconut oil is less than 2% polyfat:
http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/fats-and-oils/508/2

It's not correct that fat produces less CO2 as a fuel. As long as the fat is being used in oxidative phosphorylation (the electron transport chain) it consumes mores O2 than glucose and produces more CO2. That reflects the higher caloric density of the fat more than anything else, and it is not any attribute of the fat aside from calories. One gram of carbohydrate is 4 calories and one gram of fat is 9 calories, so by weight the fat is more calorie-dense.

I have read these ketogenic sites that tell you fat is more efficient aerobically than glucose, and I have read the pro-carb sites that claim glucose is more efficient, and they are both wrong. In fact when you look at the actual amounts of O2 consumed and CO2 produced and ATP produced, these forms of fuel equilibrate as more or less equivalent in terms of *efficiency*. What I mean by that is one calorie from fat will use about the same amount of O2 input to the electron transport chain, and will output about the same amount of CO2 and ATP as one calorie or glucose. Where people get confused on this point is that glucose and fat are not the same *density* of calories by weight.

The trick is that usually only very fit people are able to burn fat as a fuel efficiently. If you are highly dependent on inefficient glycolysis you will not use fat as a fuel efficiently, and you will perceive a lot more energy eating carbs.

 

[tara]

Not all fat sources are high on polyunsaturated fats. Grassfed beef is less than 2% polyfat:
http://www.westonaprice.org/health-topi ... ef-tallow/

Is tallow just the body fat from beef, or any beef fat? I think it might be optimistic to assume that all grass fed beef fat is this low in PUFAs. I think it can also depend on the cut the fat comes from, and the climate the animals lived in. I eat mostly temperate climate grassfed beef and lamb. I have related elsewhere that I've noticed several times a large difference in the quality of fat from tail or knee joints, compared with ribs and associated spine, when cooking stock. The former provide fat that is sometimes still liquid after cooling overnight in the fridge. The latter has been very firm even before the stock has fully cooled. I have interpreted this as the animals producing more unsaturated fat in the extremities because of the cooler temperature there, and more saturated fat in the body and round the vital organs, because these are maintained at a higher temperature. Someone suggested this not necessaily evidence about saturation, but I don't know what else it is likely to mean. Peat referred to a study that showed some animals in a cold climate (I think it was sheep) had more unsaturated fat nearer the skin. He also refered to a study where young animals (can't remember the species) wearing woolley jerseys produced more saturated fat.
I think traditionally suet from around the kidneys was especially valued. I'm guessing suet tends to be more saturated than average tallow.

Coconut oil is apparently good stuff. Quite a few people report intestinal difficulties if they eat large quantities of it, as would be required to use it as the major fuel source. I eat a little regularly, but have never eaten enough to know if it would bother my guts. Isn't it the chain-lengths (high proportion short and medium chain), as well as the high level of saturation, that are considered to make coconut oil so good or boosting metabolism?

I was meaning sugar oxidation produces more CO2 per calorie, ATP, and oxygen use, not per weight. But I don't have enough background understanding of chemistry/biochemistry to assess conflicting claims about this.

 

[jyb]

I was meaning sugar oxidation produces more CO2 per calorie, ATP, and oxygen use, not per weight. But I don't have enough background understanding of chemistry/biochemistry to assess conflicting claims about this.

I don't think its obvious that fat oxidation produces less CO2 or less warmth or less thyroid production promotion, at least not from studies. Also, it's not really useful to think on a per calorie basis, because fat is high in calorie and the total amount of CO2 produced depends on just how much of it you eat...the question is more about whether you have more CO2/thyroid if you include fat in your diet. And that in turn depends on if you burn it oxidatively or if its pufa circulating. Just like sugar. Eat plenty of sugar, if its a fuel that you use to produce lactate, you're not going to get any CO2. I can see many other variables at play that could make a difference in terms of CO2 and oxygen use...

 

[Ritchie]

Hi tara, just on point 5, where you mention the "Randle Cycle", Peat says "Since lactic acid is produced by the breakdown of glucose, a high level of lactate in the blood means that a large amount of sugar is being consumed; in response, the body mobilizes free fatty acids as an additional source of energy. An increase of free fatty acids suppresses the oxidation of glucose. (This is called the Randle effect, glucose-fatty acid cycle, substrate-competition cycle, etc.)" This seems on the surface very paradoxical and confusing since eating more sugar = more lactic acid = mobilised free fatty acids as an energy source = suppression of oxidation of glucose. So in other words he seems to be saying that eating more sugar suppresses the use of sugar by the body as an energy source. Have I understood this wrong?

 

[tara]

post 112987 This seems on the surface very paradoxical and confusing since eating more sugar = more lactic acid = mobilised free fatty acids as an energy source = suppression of oxidation of glucose. So in other words he seems to be saying that eating more sugar suppresses the use of sugar by the body as an energy source. Have I understood this wrong?

I'm not a undred percent sure I'm understanding it fully, but my reading was that

post 112987 a large amount of sugar is being consumed

is referring to the use (consumption) of large amounts of sugars in cells for instance under stress conditions, rather than the eating (consumption) of large amounts of sugar. Ie - anthropomorphically, the body is saying something like: 'Ok, we are getting through the sugar supply a bit fast here, lets burn a bit more fat so we can make the sugar last longer, so we don't risk running out of fuel for the central control system.'

 

[Ritchie]

post 112987 a large amount of sugar is being consumed

is referring to the use (consumption) of large amounts of sugars in cells for instance under stress conditions, rather than the eating (consumption) of large amounts of sugar. Ie - anthropomorphically, the body is saying something like: 'Ok, we are getting through the sugar supply a bit fast here, lets burn a bit more fat so we can make the sugar last longer, so we don't risk running out of fuel for the central control system.'[/quote]

Ah yes I guess that makes more sense, thank you for your response

 

[achillea]

You just made me realize some important points by cross referencing the specific carbohydrate diet (SCD):

* Many fruits contain glucose and fructose as monosaccharides rather than as sucrose. Many of the gastro studies around SCD diets confirm that - for whatever reason - sucrose tends to not digest well for some people and seems to cause endotoxin issues. Monosaccharides digest much better for such patients. This is why fruit may be a better source of carbs in the diet.

* NOT ALL FRUIT is free of sucrose. So you actually have to research that issue if you want to be a purist. Berries tend to be very low on sucrose as well as very nutritious so those are always a good choice. Many fruits like apple, banana, pineapple, mangoes contain high sucrose loads, so those foods are probably non optimal for someone who has gastro IBD type issues.

Do you have any good references to studies on the endotoxin issue? I think that is a key insight.

Why does Peat avoid saturated and monounsaturated fats as a primary calorie source? I understand the issues with polyunsaturated fats.

If a person has trouble with the disaccharide bond in sugar causing intestinal stress as Elaine Gottschall says in her book " Breaking the vicious Cycle" do you think it advantageous to mix 50% glucose/dextrose and 50% fructose to create your own sugar that does not need to have the bond broken thus supplying the body with the two sugars thus avoiding the body not being able to break the disaccharide bond and the ensuing distress caused by the indigestibility of the sucrose?

 

[schultz]

If a person has trouble with the disaccharide bond in sugar causing intestinal stress as Elaine Gottschall says in her book " Breaking the vicious Cycle" do you think it advantageous to mix 50% glucose/dextrose and 50% fructose to create your own sugar that does not need to have the bond broken thus supplying the body with the two sugars thus avoiding the body not being able to break the disaccharide bond and the ensuing distress caused by the indigestibility of the sucrose?

Is this an actual occurence? Breaking a sucrose bond seems like the most basic kind of digestion... if the body can't even manage to turn sucrose into glucose and fructose, how is it even functioning?

If this actually happens, it would be very strange and also interesting to research!

 

[tara]

Is this an actual occurence? Breaking a sucrose bond seems like the most basic kind of digestion... if the body can't even manage to turn sucrose into glucose and fructose, how is it even functioning?

My impression is that it is not common, but can occasionally happen - and the people who have this difficulty (lack of sucrase?) it does make functioning difficult - causing potentially serious health issues that standard drs don't know what to do with. Unless monosaccharides are supplied. I think many fruits and honey have a mix of monosaccharide glucose and fructose as well as some disaccharide sucrose?
The SCD is not intended for everyone, only those few who need it.

If a person has trouble with the disaccharide bond in sugar causing intestinal stress as Elaine Gottschall says in her book " Breaking the vicious Cycle" do you think it advantageous to mix 50% glucose/dextrose and 50% fructose to create your own sugar that does not need to have the bond broken thus supplying the body with the two sugars thus avoiding the body not being able to break the disaccharide bond and the ensuing distress caused by the indigestibility of the sucrose?

My guess, theoretically (no experience of this myself), I imagine a mix of refined glucose and fructose would be a possible improvement over refined sucrose for this small minority, but as always, food that also contains other minerals etc is probably better.

 

[achillea]

We are wondering if this inability to cleave the bond of sucrose may be more common than we are lead to believe. There is a lot of talk about endotoxins on the forum. It seems that because the micro villi, intestinal cells of the intestine, have been damaged( by life and the diet we have all been exposed to) it inhibits or stops the breaking of the disaccharide bond, which feeds the endotoxins and irritates the intestines which n turn manifests into malady.
We then eat more and more sucrose to get the energy we want and need. Is this the reason that so many on the forum are not getting over their concerns. Logically it would seem that the problem does not have to be extreme but it seems it can be partial too. Who really says breaking the bond is a natural easy thing for the body to do? Beet sugar and cane sugar are a rather recent manifestation as far as I know.
We have switched over to the 50/50 combo to see what happens. In two days my wife has decreased sensitivity on the bottom of her feet. She thinks it is helping.
I will scan in some info with explanatory diagrams in the near future so you all can see it more clearly.
Do you think the monosaccharide 50% dextrose by itself even though combined with 50% fructose would spike the insulin like starch. Is there some necessity of the disaccharide bond that keeps the glucose in check so it does not spike like starch?
Just trying to figure it out.