Is Fructose as inert as they claim?

[Oldvatr]

This is copied from a commercial blog site Newsletter that I received today, but I normally apply a large pinch of scepticism to these.

Sometimes they publish something that makes sense, and this Newsletter article ties up with other things I have read about Fructose. It sort of makes up for the BBC Cr**p I have recently shared with you.

I have de-activated the embedded links to their site, but have left the authors details intact. Otherwise it is copied verbatim.

<<Dear Reader,

I have made my thoughts clear several times on The Real Diabetes Truth about the role of sugar, and in particular fructose, in driving the massive global epidemic of type 2 diabetes. A year ago, I wrote here about a study that showed sugar triggers metabolic syndrome and insulin resistance – not because it causes weight gain, but simply because it is sugar.

It seems strange, then, that the UK government's Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition still insists there is no link between sugar consumption and type 2 diabetes. Consequently, Diabetes UK's website continues to say "We know sugar doesn't directly causes type 2 diabetes". Well, it's time for a reality check, since the latest research shows those statements to be totally false!

A new study, carried out at Duke University School of Medicine in the USA, has revealed the precise mechanism in our bodies by which consuming large quantities of fructose can cause type 2 diabetes. And it turns some of the earlier assumptions about fructose and diabetes on their heads.

Fructose is a natural "fruit sugar" that makes up one half of the molecule of sucrose, or table sugar. The other half is glucose. Earlier studies have suggested that consuming fructose – which is used heavily by the soft drinks industry in the form of high-fructose corn syrup or HFCS – could lead to type 2 diabetes by causing liver fat accumulation and insulin resistance.1

The new research reveals a more immediate way in which fructose raises blood sugar.2 It involves a signalling protein called ChREBP, which is activated by over-consumption of fructose and in turn stimulates glucose production in the liver. Once switched on, ChREBP continues to make the liver churn out more and more glucose, overriding the body's attempts to stop it by secreting more insulin. The result is high levels of both glucose and insulin in the blood – and that is what leads to insulin resistance and type 2 diabetes.

So if anybody tells you that sugar doesn't cause type 2 diabetes, don't believe it for one moment. Insulin resistance is, of course, a key feature of type 2 diabetes. But it is a condition that a natural chemical from the bitter melon plant could overcome, as I explain in my next blog post.

Here's to healthy living,

Martin Hum PhD DHD
Nutritionist
for Real Diabetes Truth >>>>>>>

 

[CherryAA]

sounds about right to me in terms of everything else I've read

 

[ickihun]

I BELIEVE fructose causes fatty liver. Specialist says carbohydrates. So we're both right.

 

[tim2000s]

In order for Fructose to be converted to glucose, it is transported to the liver where it is broken down into glucose and triglycerides. THis paper is useful in that it outlines the result of eating high fructose on Lipids: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2682989/

In this short (four week) study where n=20, there was little effect on visceral fat between a high fructose and a high glucose diet: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21396140 however increased plasma triglycerides were observed.

Perhaps the most interesting study in this area was undertaken at Princeton, where rats were fed a high fructose corn syrup diet, a normal diet or a high sucrose diet. The outcome was that those fed the high fructose diet only, suffered with what appeared to be metabolic syndrome: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3522469/

So what can you take from that? Well reading between all these articles, it suggests that Fructose definitely increases Triglycerides and VLDL cholesterol measures when consumed in large amounts in the short term. In the longer term, it suggests that in the longer term, consumption in high volumes can lead to metabolic syndrome and visceral fat storage.

 

[MikeTurin]

So what can you take from that? Well reading between all these articles, it suggests that Fructose definitely increases Triglycerides and VLDL cholesterol measures when consumed in large amounts in the short term. In the longer term, it suggests that in the longer term, consumption in high volumes can lead to metabolic syndrome and visceral fat storage.

So actually an apple a day gives visceral fat storage.
Or is the fact that adding fructose artificially in food causes problems.

 

[bulkbiker]

So actually an apple a day gives visceral fat storage.
Or is the fact that adding fructose artificially in food causes problems.

Both

 

[bobrobert]

So actually an apple a day gives visceral fat storage.
Or is the fact that adding fructose artificially in food causes problems.

What if your only fructose intake was only an apple how can you be sure that all of it will be stored as visceral fat?

 

[tim2000s]

So actually an apple a day gives visceral fat storage.
Or is the fact that adding fructose artificially in food causes problems.

Let's look at this from a slightly different perspective. Our bodies are set up to use fructose. We metabolise it. We eat it in all fruits. The key point being that when we digest it from said apple, it takes a number of processes to be metabolised. It takes a while to hit the liver and is only consumed in small amounts.

When we consume it as an HFCS (high fructose corn syrup) it is not metabolised slowly. It hits the liver really fast and usually in significantly higher quantities. That's when the real problems start.

So no, an apple a day doesn't give visceral fat storage. Artificially added fructose however is a different story.

 

[ickihun]

Let's look at this from a slightly different perspective. Our bodies are set up to use fructose. We metabolise it. We eat it in all fruits. The key point being that when we digest it from said apple, it takes a number of processes to be metabolised. It takes a while to hit the liver and is only consumed in small amounts.

When we consume it as an HFCS (high fructose corn syrup) it is not metabolised slowly. It hits the liver really fast and usually in significantly higher quantities. That's when the real problems start.

So no, an apple a day doesn't give visceral fat storage. Artificially added fructose however is a different story.

On the bases we are all different and have different metabolic rates. Maybe to some the fructose alone, in the apple, can be enough to cause visceral fat?

 

[Oldvatr]

So actually an apple a day gives visceral fat storage.
Or is the fact that adding fructose artificially in food causes problems.

I think personally that the problem is not in eating fresh fruit, but the corn syrup (HFCS) added to low sugar soft drinks and processed foods.

 

[tim2000s]

On the bases we are all different and have different metabolic rates. Maybe to some the fructose alone, in the apple, can be enough to cause visceral fat?

Whilst anything is possible, to get enough fructose from apples to cause visceral fat, you'd need to eat one hell of a lot of apples. One apple typically contains about 10-12g of Fructose, and all of the studies that showed the impact of Fructose on rats fed them an 8% solution with free access to it all day every day for six months. Even the human tests that showed an increase in trigs and VLDL, but no visceral fat gains over four weeks fed 150g of Fructose daily. So no, the fructose in one apple is not enough to cause visceral fat.

 

[ickihun]

I know if all I had was an apple, carb and sugar wise in my diet, I'd have raised bgs compared to no apple a day. But that's just me.
So does raised bg cause visceral fat? Two different things. Visceral fat usage and processing higher bgs. When I have higher bgs (ketones) I lose weight but cause complications in doing so.

 

[bulkbiker]

Let's look at this from a slightly different perspective. Our bodies are set up to use fructose. We metabolise it. We eat it in all fruits. The key point being that when we digest it from said apple, it takes a number of processes to be metabolised. It takes a while to hit the liver and is only consumed in small amounts.

When we consume it as an HFCS (high fructose corn syrup) it is not metabolised slowly. It hits the liver really fast and usually in significantly higher quantities. That's when the real problems start.

So no, an apple a day doesn't give visceral fat storage. Artificially added fructose however is a different story.

disagree slightly.. apples are available for what 1 month in nature? so our bodies are more likely adapted to eat an apple a day for one month a year not 365 days a year. Would be interesting to know (although probably impossible to find out) how much fructose was in apples before they started to be tweaked to make them taste sweeter. Maybe if we ate 30 apples a year we'd be fine with that. Pedantic, possibly but a different view.

 

[MikeTurin]

When we consume it as an HFCS (high fructose corn syrup) it is not metabolised slowly. It hits the liver really fast and usually in significantly higher quantities. That's when the real problems start.

So no, an apple a day doesn't give visceral fat storage. Artificially added fructose however is a different story.

We're all bombed with a lot of information of what is healthy and what is not.

One could suppose that eating a lot of heavily processed food made with odd ingredients could cause a lot of problems: this make sense because our bodies aren't equipped to process these foods or a very high quantity of a single nutrient.

 

[tim2000s]

disagree slightly.. apples are available for what 1 month in nature? so our bodies are more likely adapted to eat an apple a day for one month a year not 365 days a year. Would be interesting to know (although probably impossible to find out) how much fructose was in apples before they started to be tweaked to make them taste sweeter. Maybe if we ate 30 apples a year we'd be fine with that. Pedantic, possibly but a different view.

Not really. Apples in and of their own are not a good example. In the UK, for example, fruits are available (which are sweetened through fructose) from March to roughly the end of September in one form or another, and have been for many aeons. So we would eat them for a much greater proportion of the year.

 

[ickihun]

Whilst anything is possible, to get enough fructose from apples to cause visceral fat, you'd need to eat one hell of a lot of apples. One apple typically contains about 10-12g of Fructose, and all of the studies that showed the impact of Fructose on rats fed them an 8% solution with free access to it all day every day for six months. Even the human tests that showed an increase in trigs and VLDL, but no visceral fat gains over four weeks fed 150g of Fructose daily. So no, the fructose in one apple is not enough to cause visceral fat.

For some!
We are not all the same. It wouldnt affect someone maybe with just diabetes but another person with more slower metabolic rate conditions, maybe that one appleis enough to cause visceral fat?

 

[Pinkorchid]

That still does not explain why some people who have never been overweight or had a high sugar high starchy carb diet still get T2 .
For some of us there is no clear answer as to why we have it because we do not fit the image given almost daily now in the media as to what someone with T2 is which is overweight and living on junk food and eating loads of refined sugar but they never say this is not the case with many people yet they still have T2 diabetes..T2 is now seen on a par with smoking and alcohol related illnesses one that it is self inflicted so our own fault and we should feel guilty about how much it will cost the NHS

 

[bulkbiker]

Not really. Apples in and of their own are not a good example. In the UK, for example, fruits are available (which are sweetened through fructose) from March to roughly the end of September in one form or another, and have been for many aeons. So we would eat them for a much greater proportion of the year.

Disagree again.. that may be the case now.. although not even convinced of that
http://www.englishapplesandpears.co.uk/english_season_apples.php
but without modern storage methods they wouldn't last very long. When I used to fruit pick in my student days and just after in the UK it was all september/october work. Anyway I avoid them to preserve my lower blood glucose levels.

 

[ickihun]

We're all bombed with a lot of information of what is healthy and what is not.

One could suppose that eating a lot of heavily processed food made with odd ingredients could cause a lot of problems: this make sense because our bodies aren't equipped to process these foods or a very high quantity of a single nutrient.

Yes, it's a start.

 

[ickihun]

Not really. Apples in and of their own are not a good example. In the UK, for example, fruits are available (which are sweetened through fructose) from March to roughly the end of September in one form or another, and have been for many aeons. So we would eat them for a much greater proportion of the year.

Agree. In the war my grandmother used agents for her fruit flans. (Fructose corn and stewed fruit in pies.)