Sucrose is the primary source of modern disease

[ATP]

The word sugar is synonymous with carbohydrates in the context of dietary saccharides. The calories you're getting from polysaccharides is ultimately glucose as they are just glucose polymers which means you're consuming sugar.

What makes carbohydrates different from fatty acids and amino acids, the substrates used for function, is that only one form exists, and that is glucose (glycogen is part of that). Whereas the number of amino acids or fatty acids that the body uses, whether essential or non-essential, are too many to name.

If this is what you genuinely believe, I suggest you go back to biochemistry fundamentals as sugar in different forms is essential within the organism.

With that said, the main cause of disease is sucrose, one type of sugar, particularly processed sugar.

Sucrose includes glucose, which you already have said you consume plenty of.

I do not advocate for a ketogenic diet. I personally prefer to have most of my calories from polysaccharides

You should have articulated your argument differently. What you're saying is that people should consume fiber and minerals with sugar (glucose).

 

[Alpha]

1.. Starches, which are pure glucose tend to causes higher blood glucose spikes, than sucrose. A look at the glycemic index will show this. Fructose itself doesn't increase blood glucose levels rapidly and doesn't producte a significant insulin response.

2. Larger insulin spikes occur in response to glucose only sources. Its important to be specific about the threshold for an "increase daily AUC" that is actually problematic. Increased carb consumption may increase insulin initially up to a point, but insulin sensitivity also improves leading to less insulin requirements for higher carb intakes.

3.. Only under extreme circumstances in metabolically impaired individuals is the livers capacity impaired. Carbohydrate intake, including fructose contributes very minimally to hepatic DNL. This is well known in the research. It increase trigs by altering peripheral fatty acid metabolism. Multiple things can lead to NAFLD, and multiple different components are required to create the context in which it develops and progresses to NASH. It takes extreme circumstances in healthy individuals to increase Uric acid into problematic ranges. Uric acid is a serum antioxidant.

4.. You missed point #4 and went straight to point #5 from point #3.

5.. Excess energy in general can drive DNL and adipocyte expansion. Sucrose doesn't significantly increase DNL under isocaloric feeding compared to other carbohydrate sources.

6.. High blood glucose levels occur primarily in type 1 and 2 diabetes for different reasons. The ROS mechanism you discuss in this context is most relevant to the type 2 circumstance. The high ROS in type 2 is driven by mitochondrial dysfunction with an overeliance on fatty acid oxidation, leading to an altered cellular uptake and utilization of glucose. Thus the problem isn't glucose ingestion, or fructose ingestion, its disturbed mitochondrial function and excess fatty acid oxidation.

7.. Macrophages are activated by the metabolic dysfunction, which isn't neccesarily directly triggered by glucose or fructose. Theres ancillary sequelae of pure sucrose and pure fructose ingestion that can contribute to metabolic issues but the sugars themselves aren't inherently harmful.

8.. This has little direct relevance to fructose, sucrose, or glucose ingestion. The hyperglycemia from type 2 diabetes is often a function of increased gluconeogenesis from hyperglucagonemia in combination with excess fatty acid oxidation and FFA release.

9.. This happens with free fructose feeding in rat studies, which is not so relevant to normal patterns of fructose consumption in humans.

10.. Exaggerated statements made without supporting mechanisms and evidence mentioned. The jargon about IL-6 was very loosely connected to the lower points at best, but it didn't provide any direct support for the lower statements.

-----

The major concerns with sucrose are its lack of nutrients and possible microbiome disturbance. It shouldn't be a primary carbohydrate source but it doesn't seem to be the smoking gun for disease.

Pure fructose without glucose is worse than sucrose due to its lack of absorption in the intestine and susbequent spurning of endotoxin production. However large amounts of pure fructose without glucose rarely occurs in the diet, even in the US and even with high fructose corn syrup consumption.

The "best" primary sources of carbohydrate from a purely rational nutrition perspective are tubers, and fruits/ juice. These minimize GI irritation, minimize allergens, minimize microbiome disruption, are bioavailable, are nutrient dense (vitamins, minerals, polyphenols, fibers, etc.), minimize hormonal disruption, minimize metabolic disruption and have largely positive outcomes in the research. Dairy is another good source but tolerance varies due to lactose and casein peptides.

Grains and legumes are other possible sources but they can have irritating fibers & allergens, imbalanced micronutrients (high phos)/ lower micronutrients, can negatively impact hormonal function, some can disrupt the microbiome, and in general are much less digestible overall. White rice is a gray area with mixed pros and cons here.

Blaming fructose, sucrose, or carbohydrates as the "cause" of disease, rather than fully understanding the overarching context, often leads to problematic extensions and conclusions.

Hi Clash, thanks for post.

1. That is true, pure glucose causes the biggest spike in insulin response among a randomised group of people. However, within that same of randomised group of people, the peaks will look vastly different depending on their metabolic health profiles, which comes back to the original point, what causes metabolic disease, which in turn is the primary causal factor for hypertension, CVD, dementia, obesity, and all the other leading causes of deaths that I mentioned earler? Sucrose has a moderate glycemic index, but a substantially higher glycemic load, thanks to its fructose molecule that dilutes the pure glucose effect it has in these indicies when used for calculation, despite fructose, as opposed to fiber in most other foods as a component of total carbs, is just as bad if you were to build a metabolic index. The body appears to be excellently designed to handle a sudden rush of food, or glucose, with relative ease. However, repeated occurrences will eventually degrade that functionality.

2. Yes, as I had mentioned earlier, glucose causes the biggest increases in insulin response, but glucose is not found in pure form in nature, except through sucrose in the form of fiber rich fruits. It is very clear that amylose and amylopectins isocalorically given both lower peaks in insulin and lower AUC. These are crticial but not the only points needed to develop insulin resistance. Therefore, it is natural to conclude that pure sucrose is the easiest way to induce insulin resistance, not just for its readily absorbed glucose molecule, but also for its insulin independent fructose molecule.

3. That is not what the data show. It does not take extreme conditions to make the liver impaired, which I am assuming here your definition of that is oversupplied by energy and accumulated hepatic fat deposits through diet. In fact, you would be surprised to know that 30% of Americans have NAFLD, and up to 50% of the population in Korea, one of the remaining few countries that still uses HCFS (again, indistinguishable from sucrose as mentioned previously). It has been shown that countries that use HCFS as a sweetner had 20% more prevalence of diabetes, and much more for pre-diabetes, and this was adjusted for sugar intake, suggesting a calorie is not just a calorie. I would even go far as to say these figures are understating the problem. A 5% fractionation ja the official diagnosis of steatosis, I would love to see their serum hepatic lipase enzyme concentrations, using pre-diabetes to diabetes as an analogy, where the former is 80% of the problem, diabetes in itself is a small step towards disease compared to the more prevalent, more problematic, and less attention receiving hyperinsulinemia. So how would you make sure that DNL is at its highest? Simple, you consume sucrose, as also mentioned in a previous post, it works on two pathways independent of each of each other using glucose and fructose to create the ultimate DNL and cholesterol synthesis factory.

4. Good catch, I've been typing on my phone all this time which isn't the easiest thing to do.

5. Data points to that it does. This is especially evident in longitudinal studies, one of the key missing ingredients in most of the prospective or RCTs done. Much like ASCVD, It is a disease of progression.

6. I'm not very clear on your point. The pathopathology of type 1 and 2 diabetes is somewhat well understood, and sucrose consumption, especially in excess caloric surplus, is the primary driver of the latter.

7. They are not directly triggered by glucose or fructose ingestion, that is correct. They are triggered by the response of insulin which is normal and healthy, it is when insulin levels are both high and chronic, that issues arise. High levels of insulin, even in the presence of normal blood glucose levels as in pre-diabetics, I would argue make up 50% of the global population at minimum, can directly activate immune cells, particularly macrophages. Insulin can stimulate these cells to produce pro-inflammatory cytokines like TNF-alpha, IL-6, and IL-1β. Hyperinsulinemia can activate key signaling pathways within immune cells that sway kt towards a pro-inflammatory state. For example, the NF-κB pathway, a central regulator of inflammation, can be activated by high levels of insulin. This activation leads to the transcription of various genes involved in the inflammatory response. Insulin acts on the endothelium (the inner lining of blood vessels) and can influence the interaction between endothelial cells and immune cells. In a state of hyperinsulinemia, this interaction can become dysregulated, contributing to endothelial dysfunction and promoting the adhesion and migration of immune cells into tissues, thereby exacerbating inflammation. In conditions associated with hyperinsulinemia, such as obesity and metabolic syndrome, adipose tissue becomes inflamed and is characterized by an infiltration of immune cells. High insulin levels can exacerbate this inflammation in adipose tissue, leading to the release of more pro-inflammatory cytokines and adipokines. Chronic hyperinsulinemia can contribute to insulin resistance in immune cells themselves. This low-grade chronic inflammation is a hallmark of various metabolic disorders.

8. Sounds contradictory. You might want to re-read that one again, in the context of what I had said.

9. This is not true, given the data I have provided in this post and past posts. Pure fructose is not needed, and possibly inferior to sucrose in inducing non-subcutaneous adipose deposits.

10. To make it simple. Sucrose consumption, high insulin, fat liver deposits, liver insulin resistant, liver exports more glucose and TG which creates ROS, triggers immune response, immune cells insulin resistant and can neither utilise glucose or tell that glucose is now under control being in a perpetual inflammatory state, this is also partially done by reducing glucocorticoids that are anti-inflammatory in nature, cortisol eventually rises in insulin resistance as it fails to respond, cells become insulin resistant and glucocorticoid resistant, insulins mitogenic properties are still functional leading to stiffening of artierial walls and endothelial dysfunction raising blood pressure, liver exporting much higher lipoprotein particles due to increased DNL and inhibited glucogenesis get pushed against the damaged endothelial wall more readily and get stuck, more immune response, plaque formation and CVD. It is a vicious self feeding cycle.

 

[Alpha]

The word sugar is synonymous with carbohydrates in the context of dietary saccharides. The calories you're getting from polysaccharides is ultimately glucose as they are just glucose polymers which means you're consuming sugar.

Yes, I have stated many times before, sugars are a broad term that should be separated from sucrose, particularly refined or processed sugar as it is more commonly known. For all intents and purposes whenever I refer to sugar depending on the context, I mean sucrose, or white sugar.

If this is what you genuinely believe, I suggest you go back to biochemistry fundamentals as sugar in different forms is essential within the organism.

I believe that is not the case, the cells in our bodies and mitochondria can only use glucose as a substrate for ATP, no other form of sugar is essential or used within the organism.

Sucrose includes glucose, which you already have said you consume plenty of.

Yes, I do consume a lot of polysaccharides, particularly in the form of starch sugars, which in turn become glucose in the blood and liver. However, I do not consume plenty of sucrose. That distinction is important.

You should have articulated your argument differently. What you're saying is that people should consume fiber and minerals with sugar (glucose).

Yes, ideally, for every 5 grams of carbohydrates you consume, you should have 1 gram of fiber, roughly 70% soluble/30% insoluble. That is particularly important if you consume white sugar or added sugars, probably through supplement form in that case. It is not ideal to do so, however it attempts to best replicate a natural food source to the extent possible and should not replace a whole food diet.

 

[ATP]

Yes, I have stated many times before, sugars are a broad term that should be separated from sucrose, particularly refined or processed sugar as it is more commonly known. For all intents and purposes whenever I refer to sugar, I mean sucrose, or white sugar.

Sucrase hydrolyses sucrose into glucose and fructose in the intestine before absorption so when you say sucrose causes disease you have to include glucose.

What part of the disaccharide do you think is causing disease? Is it the glucose, fructose or both? It is ironic that you want to be specific but you're avoiding specificity with your claim.

I believe that is not the case, the cells in our bodies and mitochondria can only use glucose as a substrate for ATP, no other form of sugar is essential or used with the organism.

Deoxyribose for example.



Your claim has been made by many and they all have been unconvincing.

The real question is, what is the tolerable upper level of fructose consumption in the context of each individual?

If you were to think about your claim that sucrose is the main cause of disease from that perspective, you might find your answer.

 

[Alpha]

Sucrase hydrolyses sucrose into glucose and fructose in the intestine before absorption so when you say sucrose causes disease you have to include glucose.

What part of the disaccharide do you think is causing disease? Is it the glucose, fructose or both? It is ironic that you want to be specific but you're avoiding specificity with your claim.


Deoxyribose for example.


Your claim has been made by many and they all have been unconvincing.

The real question is, what is the tolerable upper level of fructose consumption in the context of each individual?

If you were to think about your claim that sucrose is the main cause of disease from that perspective, you might find your answer.

Hi ATP, it is very reductionist to say sucrose is equivalent to glucose, which in turn is equivalent all groups of saccharides when ingested. Glucose from sucrose, is not the same as glucose from amylose for example. Are they the same molecule? Yes. Do they illicit the same biochemical responses and go through similar pathways? No. Do they have the same impact on biomarkers? No.

I have been clear that it is both the combination of glucose and fructose present inside the same feeding window that causes the issue. I believe I have been overwhelmingly specific thus far, if you need more clarification, happy to discuss more.

Deoxyribose is needed for structural needs, not functional. That's like saying cholestrol is essential part of cell membranes, or collagen is essential part of bone structure. You don't consume or need to consume either of them, they are derivatives normal metabolism.

A tolerable upper level of fructose is difficult to assess. Again its a bit reductive to say given without context. Pure fructose, fructose as part of sucrose, or fructose as part of sucrose with fiber and dietary fat. I don't know the answer to any of these questions, but I do know that they are all different. Fructose inhibits three seperate enzymes required for normal mitochondrial function, namely AMPK. There are good reasons why that is the case, and not inherently bad, but overactivation of that is.

 

[Risingfire]

I would say I eat a pretty unremarkable diet. The only restrictions I have are sucrose (I do have a teaspoon of white sugar in my morning decaff coffee), and PUFA (vegetable oils really). I try to keep daily sucrose and added sugars below 20g a day, the lower the better. Cakes, donuts, common chocolates and candies, and soft beverages are all out of the question. I do like to have one or two blocks of dark 70% chocolate as dessert. I used to eat fruits quite a lot to substitute my sugar intake, but could not sustain it for a length of time and gave up. I generally try to focus on whole foods as the main component of my diet, typically a main protien course like grilled chicken, steak, or fish, and a side dish of starches most often rice, and a green salad or vegetables when possible.

Alternatively, I supplement with 10g of fiber with my main meal everyday, and take a green/plant supplement everyday, along with magnesium 400mg a night, and 1g of fish oil in the morning. Its not ideal, but it's almost all of what I want to see in a diet and most importantly, I can sustain it indefinitely.

Why are you on the RPF if you don't agree with any of his dietary suggestions?

 

[ATP]

it is very reductionist to say sucrose is equivalent to glucose, which in turn is equivalent all groups of saccharides when ingested.

Never said that but glucose entering the enterocyte is glucose.

both the combination of glucose and fructose present inside the same feeding window that causes the issue.

Well that includes fruit and many plant foods.

 

[Alpha]

Why are you on the RPF if you don't agree with any of his dietary suggestions?

Hi Risingfire. I'm assuming you are referring to Ray Peat. That is categorically false. As mentioned before, I do not take everything I read for granted, I like to do my own work, as should you. There are many nutritionist or biochemist that I follow or listen to, but it does not mean I agree with everything one person says, I discard what seems to be inadequately proven, or conflicting with the latest data. I take the lessons from individual scientists, and using my own research, come up with my own frameworks.

For example, I don't eat PUFA, in the forms of vegetable oil, I don't think dietary cholesterol is problematic, I do think estrogen and serotonin are stress hormones, I do think coffee is good (although decaffed), I've spent years taking 500mg of aspirin everyday, I take cyproheptadine every now and then to blunt the stress response, I do think that MCFA and SCFA are vastly superior to LCFA in controlling chronic disease and improving metabolic health, and I do take vitamin E regularly for lipid peroxidation.

On the other hand, I strongly disagree that sugar is good, or soft beverages with white sugar (mexican coke), that fish oil is bad, that some medications are bad like stimulants, that estrogen causes hair loss, and possibly other things that I can't recall.

You have to be able to think for yourself. If you do your own research and come up to all the same conclusions that any scientist/figure/nutrionist has believed in, then more power to you. If you believe everything one person says regardless, then you are part of a cult following.

 

[Tre]

I would say I eat a pretty unremarkable diet. The only restrictions I have are sucrose (I do have a teaspoon of white sugar in my morning decaff coffee), and PUFA (vegetable oils really). I try to keep daily sucrose and added sugars below 20g a day, the lower the better. Cakes, donuts, common chocolates and candies, and soft beverages are all out of the question. I do like to have one or two blocks of dark 70% chocolate as dessert. I used to eat fruits quite a lot to substitute my sugar intake, but could not sustain it for a length of time and gave up. I generally try to focus on whole foods as the main component of my diet, typically a main protien course like grilled chicken, steak, or fish, and a side dish of starches most often rice, and a green salad or vegetables when possible.

Alternatively, I supplement with 10g of fiber with my main meal everyday, and take a green/plant supplement everyday, along with magnesium 400mg a night, and 1g of fish oil in the morning. Its not ideal, but it's almost all of what I want to see in a diet and most importantly, I can sustain it indefinitely.

Alternatively, I supplement with 10g of fiber with my main meal everyday, and take a green/plant supplement everyday, along with magnesium 400mg a night, and 1g of fish oil in the morning. Its not ideal, but it's almost all of what I want to see in a diet and most importantly, I can sustain it indefinitely.

??can you pls list the brands you use of:
-Fiber supplement
-green/plant supplement
-type of magnesium
-fish oil

 

[ATP]

Hi Risingfire. I'm assuming you are referring to Ray Peat. That is categorically false. As mentioned before, I do not take everything I read for granted, I like to do my own work, as should you. There are many nutritionist or biochemist that I follow or listen to, but it does not mean I agree with everything one person says, I discard what seems to be inadequately proven, or conflicting with the latest data. I take the lessons from individual scientists, and using my own research, come up with my own frameworks.

For example, I don't eat PUFA, in the forms of vegetable oil, I don't think dietary cholesterol is problematic, I do think estrogen and serotonin are stress hormones, I do think coffee is good (although decaffed), I've spent years taking 500mg of aspirin everyday, I take cyproheptadine every now and then to blunt the stress response, I do think that MCFA and SCFA are vastly superior to LCFA in controlling chronic disease and improving metabolic health, and I do take vitamin E regularly for lipid peroxidation.

On the other hand, I strongly disagree that sugar is good, or soft beverages with white sugar (mexican coke), that fish oil is bad, that some medications are bad like stimulants, that estrogen causes hair loss, and possibly other things that I can't recall.

You have to be able to think for yourself. If you do your own research and come up to all the same conclusions that any scientist/figure/nutrionist has believed in, then more power to you. If you believe everything one person says regardless, then you are part of a cult following.

Taking supplemental fish oil and claiming sugar is the main cause of disease would be disagreeing with Peat's fundamental ideas.

 

[Peatress]

High urine glucose levels accompanied by extreme weight loss sounds like Type-1 diabetes to me. That story happened in the mid 19th century, I would love to see a similar observation done today that is well documented in controlled conditions.

Typically, large ingestion of white sugar in the presence of type 1 diabetes would be a death sentence.

Well, the man didn't die so I guess it wasn't type 1 diabetes. In a world invested in big pharma profits no one is going to repeat that sugar experiment.

BTW eating fruit before bed would keep most people awake. Juice might work better or sugared milk with gelatin (add a few drops of progest E and you will sleep like a baby).

 

[Alpha]

Can you pls list the brands you use of:
-Fiber supplement
-green/plant supplement
-type of magnesium
-fish oil

Hi Tre, I think any reputable brand is fine with these products. I have used Sunshine Nutrition, Doctors Best, Life extension for a lot of my supplements in the past.

- For fiber I use Psyillium Husk, any brand will do, powder is easier if you plan to consume 10g a day, preferably right before your biggest meal if you plan to take it once a day. Ideally, you i would aim for 1g for every 5g of pure sucrose or added sugar, and 1g per 10g of polysaccharides, particularly refined ones with the bran/fiber removed, that closely replicates what is found in natural foods.

- Green supplement I use Green Vibrance because it has a good profile and light on adaptogens, typically after food.

- Magnesium I use glycinate, because of glycine (has been discussed by RP and here), great bioavailablity, and helps with sleep. I sometimes use Threonate because it passes the BBB more readily, and Mg is really critical for neuronal inhibition and preventing excytotoxicity, which I believe many people are deficient in, rather balanced towards Ca.

- Fish oil I would recommend Krill Oil (also for astaxanthin) but you would need a lot of capsules to meet the 1g EPA+DHA. Cod liver oil is the most natural form and does not oxidize as easily as most fish oil preparations out there, along with Krill oil. And finally if you had to go purified route, make sure its re-esteified triglyceride (rTG) for less oxidation potential and easier absorption through a glycerol backbone compared to the more common ethyl ester form. If mercury is a problem for you (which there is no evidence it is with good brands), you can go down the food chain and take marine algae supplementation. Just make sure to store them in the fridge.

 

[PopSocket]

- Fish oil I would recommend Krill Oil (also for astaxanthin) but you would need a lot of capsules to meet the 1g EPA+DHA.

You must be a fan of Mercola or something.

Why don't you simply eat a bit of raw salmon/sashimi for your O3 ? Mercury ?

 

[Tre]

Hi Tre, I think any reputable brand is fine with these products. I have used Sunshine Nutrition, Doctors Best, Life extension for a lot of my supplements in the past.

- For fiber I use Psyillium Husk, any brand will do, powder is easier if you plan to consume 10g a day, preferably right before your biggest meal if you plan to take it once a day. Ideally, you i would aim for 1g for every 5g of pure sucrose or added sugar, and 1g per 10g of polysaccharides, particularly refined ones with the bran/fiber removed, that closely replicates what is found in natural foods.

- Green supplement I use Green Vibrance because it has a good profile and light on adaptogens, typically after food.

- Magnesium I use glycinate, because of glycine (has been discussed by RP and here), great bioavailablity, and helps with sleep. I sometimes use Threonate because it passes the BBB more readily, and Mg is really critical for neuronal inhibition and preventing excytotoxicity, which I believe many people are deficient in, rather balanced towards Ca.

- Fish oil I would recommend Krill Oil (also for astaxanthin) but you would need a lot of capsules to meet the 1g EPA+DHA. Cod liver oil is the most natural form and does not oxidize as easily as most fish oil preparations out there, along with Krill oil. And finally if you had to go purified route, make sure its re-esteified triglyceride (rTG) for less oxidation potential and easier absorption through a glycerol backbone compared to the more common ethyl ester form. If mercury is a problem for you (which there is no evidence it is with good brands), you can go down the food chain and take marine algae supplementation. Just make sure to store them in the fridge.

Thank you for your informed answer. I enjoyed this thread very much because of all the members thoughtful and intelligent inputs.

 

[Tre]

You must be a fan of Mercola or something.

Why don't you simply eat a bit of raw salmon/sashimi for your O3 ? Mercury ?

I do eat fish but not salmon. I don’t worry much about mercury. I watch Mercola as well as many other experts. Then I try to make good decisions. This thread is educational and highlights various thoughts on sugar/glucose/fructose which is so important. Raypeat forum is my goto website for so many matters and I love the brilliant minds here.

 

[PeterSN]

Hi Tre, I think any reputable brand is fine with these products. I have used Sunshine Nutrition, Doctors Best, Life extension for a lot of my supplements in the past.

- For fiber I use Psyillium Husk, any brand will do, powder is easier if you plan to consume 10g a day, preferably right before your biggest meal if you plan to take it once a day. Ideally, you i would aim for 1g for every 5g of pure sucrose or added sugar, and 1g per 10g of polysaccharides, particularly refined ones with the bran/fiber removed, that closely replicates what is found in natural foods.

- Green supplement I use Green Vibrance because it has a good profile and light on adaptogens, typically after food.

- Magnesium I use glycinate, because of glycine (has been discussed by RP and here), great bioavailablity, and helps with sleep. I sometimes use Threonate because it passes the BBB more readily, and Mg is really critical for neuronal inhibition and preventing excytotoxicity, which I believe many people are deficient in, rather balanced towards Ca.

- Fish oil I would recommend Krill Oil (also for astaxanthin) but you would need a lot of capsules to meet the 1g EPA+DHA. Cod liver oil is the most natural form and does not oxidize as easily as most fish oil preparations out there, along with Krill oil. And finally if you had to go purified route, make sure its re-esteified triglyceride (rTG) for less oxidation potential and easier absorption through a glycerol backbone compared to the more common ethyl ester form. If mercury is a problem for you (which there is no evidence it is with good brands), you can go down the food chain and take marine algae supplementation. Just make sure to store them in the fridge.

there was a study where they took mice and knocked out the TLR4 receptor, making them immune to endotoxin in a sense. These researchers found these knockout TLR4 micedid not develop fatty liver or insulin ressitance from fructose, while the normal mice did. Wouldn't that mean that endotoxin is to blame and not fructose per se?

 

[akgrrrl]

Correct. Glucose is a toxic and addictive reactive aldehyde. Hemoglobin a1c values are a measure of the degree of glucose binding and denaturing organ proteins.

Indeed a broad topic now, with mannose gmo'd into vegetables...yet a deft and skilled answer by member @Alpha. Endocrinologists as Robert Lustig and several more, have been uncovering the liver's subroutine of depositing visceral fat around critical organs for years. As evidence mounts against carb-into- sugars making America the most obese and most unhealthy country in the world, it will be interesting to watch.

 

[akgrrrl]

I do eat fish but not salmon. I don’t worry much about mercury. I watch Mercola as well as many other experts. Then I try to make good decisions. This thread is educational and highlights various thoughts on sugar/glucose/fructose which is so important. Raypeat forum is my goto website for so many matters and I love the brilliant minds here.

It is ludicrous to state that all salmon is mercury laden. Of course if you insist on eating "created" foods from the big Ag distribution system like the pale pink mushy farmed salmon, imprisoned off coast and fed waste grains. Or the pink salmon found in a can. (Dogfood here) When you purchase bright firm RedSalmon which has spent 5years in deep cold waters before returning to their glacial rivers there is no mercury. See attached.

 

[akgrrrl]

And I didnt mean "you" personally fyi

 

[akgrrrl]

The body cannot convert sugar to energy on the spot, or oxidize it for energy, rather the liver prefers to turn it into fatty acids, then estrify it to triglycerides for transport on apolipoprotein B-100 along with cholesterol for storage. Particularly it is fructose, or worse, the combination of fructose and glucose in a short a amount of time that leads to rapid energy conservation rather than energy liberation. The amount of people who have vitamin or mineral deficiencies to disrupt the ATP or oxidation process is almost non-existent, rather it is a biochemical process exacerbated through very specific modulations.

A good article showing that a high flux of fructose in the liver can lead to increased de novo lipogenesis through generation of lipogenic substrates, and stimulated expression of lipogenic enzymes, including acetyl-CoA carboxylase (ACC) and fatty acid synthase, these enzymes are pivotal in nature, so they determine whether fatty acids are oxidized, or synthesized. Further to that, there is significant increases in PGC-1 and other uncoupling proteins when you knockout specific sucrose mediated lipogensis pathways. It is very evident that glucose by itself, regardless of how much overconsumption is administered, will be readily oxidized for thermogenesis of the surplus, leading to the classic case of warmer temperature that people associate with high metabolism and mitochondrial health. However, this is not the case when fructose is added in the equation, and to some extent, dietary fat in an excess energy case, for obvious reasons.

I suspect the reason why the combination of glucose and fructose is worse than either individually have to do with different pathways in inducing lipogenesis gene transcription, fructose working directly on hepatocytes and mitochondrial blunting, and glucose through its insulin mediated effect to increase FAS, regardless, even more egregiously, through insulin-resistance independent mechanism. That only touches on fructose's effect on the immediate term, the longer term implications is building up liver and visceral fat reliably, that further exacerbates insulin resistance, TG synthesis, cholesterol syntesis, poor clearance of plasma lipids and sugars, and ultimatley a breakdown of metabolic function.

Miyazaki et. al has done some great work in that regard.

View attachment 59582View attachment 59583View attachment 59584

Genetic control of de novo lipogenesis: role in diet-induced obesity

De novo lipogenesis (DNL) is a complex yet highly regulated metabolic pathway, and transcription factors such as liver X receptor (LXR), sterol regulatory element-binding protein-1c (SREBP-1c), and carbohydrate response element binding protein (ChREBP) ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

https://www.journal-of-hepatology.eu/article/S0168-8278(21)00161-6/fulltext

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0021925820664134

https://www.cell.com/cell-metabolism/fulltext/S1550-4131(07)00335-X?_returnURL=https%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS155041310700335X%3Fshowall%3Dtrue

Well done!
Again, the layperson can go to several youtube endos as Robert Lustig for this process and studies showing how little good lipid panels are in the hands of MD or Cardios who fail to consider insulin resistance, or even food consumption as relevent to health.