# Why do you think fructose is so bad



## jrastories (Aug 2, 2008)

So I am trying to understand a little more about nutrition here. I understand quite a bit of biochemistry and I spent an hour and a half listening to "Sugar the bitter truth" So I understand why in sedentary people and children why fructose is so bad, there is an excess and it gets transformed into tri-triglycerides and other a bunch of other byproducts (ldl, and no decreasing appetite). 

He also says many times that it is a volume problem. not specifically a problem with fructose itself, but does not really go into why it is a volume problem. My understanding of this is equilibrium. He also says that - it is known that in glycogen depleted endurance athletes Fructose is much quicker to replenish glycogen stores in the liver - ie it is a good thing for sports drinks to have HFCS (1:01:00 of the video) This last statement is fact, biochemistry shows it.

So why do so many people believe that fructose is evil and should never be consumed? I am a firm believer in everything in moderation is ok, which everything that I have read and understand is that fructose is an essential nutrient and shouldn't be avoided compleatly. 

Is there more information out there which I haven't read or is there new information that proves that fructose has no good qualities (ie is used in the formation of glycogen)


----------



## BeerCan (Aug 29, 2006)

My major issue with fructose is that it gives me cramps (gas) and diarrhea. It happens mostly when my body is under stress i.e. long bike rides or heavy workouts. I think it is caused by fructose ma-labsorbtion and it apparently affects up to 40% of the population to some degree or another. It took me a long time to figure out that the gatorade I was drinking on my long rides was my worst enemy. BTW gatorade powder uses sugar instead of HFCS and I have no issues with it.

http://www.healthhype.com/fructose-malabsorption-cause-symptoms-and-diagnosis.html


----------



## TunicaTrails (Jun 29, 2009)

Sugar (according to the Bitter Truth guy it's all fructose), from what I've read, is OK, even a good thing if it's consumed immediately before or during exercise. I know a 24 hour solo racer who swears by soft drinks and chocolate milk during his race.


----------



## kosmo (Oct 27, 2004)

There are a lot of nutrition issues that are concerns for sedentary people (kids especially) that almost never get any significant activity. When you're burning like most of us on this forum do in an endurance race, the best info I've seen seems to indicate that a mix of sugar in its many forms (glucose, fructose, etc.) is a pretty darn good fuel.

While racing/training, I try not to worry about these concerns of sedentary people, and just see what seems to fuel my body best. When I'm not on the bike, I try to avoid the usual suspects (sugar, salt, etc.) but will freely admit that I'm modestly successful, at best.


----------



## seemlessstate (Apr 3, 2011)

it's that most of the time (normal foods, not fitness/organic stuff), it is made from genetically modified corn.

your body transforms all sorts of starches into various sugars, that it then uses for fuel. chew on a saltine for about a minute, and all of a sudden it turns sweet. this is because of an enzyme in your saliva that transforms the starch from the cracker into glucose before it hits the mechanical digestion in your stomach, and finally absorption in your small intestine. 

so saying "fructose/sugar" is bad, is a bit of a misconception. I believe it is more of what the sugar is made from, and how it is processed. ever seen how they make HFCS? its a pretty chemically involved process. its hard to even call it food by the end.


----------



## rob_co2 (Apr 23, 2004)

seemlessstate said:


> so saying "fructose/sugar" is bad, is a bit of a misconception. I believe it is more of what the sugar is made from, and how it is processed. ever seen how they make HFCS? its a pretty chemically involved process. its hard to even call it food by the end.


White table sugar ain't exactly a natural process either. The next endurance nutrition craze: filling your gel flask with molasses and carrying a stalk of sugar cane to chew during the race.


----------



## seemlessstate (Apr 3, 2011)

Table sugar is a very processed product. It gets bleached and refined through some nasty processes. 

I work in agriculture here in south Florida, and "big sugar" has giant refineries which belch out tons of pollution. I am constantly out in sugar cane fields though, and regularly Munch on sugar cane. It's great, and certainly fills you up more substantially than just eating bleached white sugar. You can buy sugar cane juice. Maybe I'll take some along on my next ride. Heck, that might even be a good business idea. Sugar cane juice marketed towards endurance sports!


----------



## rob_co2 (Apr 23, 2004)

I still don't get why the bleached products like white sugar and white flour are cheaper and more popular than the lesser refined product- which has more taste, more nutrition, and should theoretically cost less to produce. 

I've sliced off and chewed a few pieces of sugar cane as a kid, its not bad at all. I'm sure with the right marketing scheme it could be successful. The only problem is "all natural" won't get you anywhere because all kinds of processed crap gets away with that on its label.


----------



## Baldy88 (Aug 27, 2006)

rob_co2 said:


> White table sugar ain't exactly a natural process either. The next endurance nutrition craze: filling your gel flask with molasses and carrying a stalk of sugar cane to chew during the race.


Actually the do it yourself gel is made from molasses. You Tube home made energy gel.


----------



## iheartbicycles (Mar 14, 2008)

jrastories said:


> So I am trying to understand a little more about nutrition here. I understand quite a bit of biochemistry and I spent an hour and a half listening to "Sugar the bitter truth" So I understand why in sedentary people and children why fructose is so bad, there is an excess and it gets transformed into tri-triglycerides and other a bunch of other byproducts (ldl, and no decreasing appetite).
> 
> He also says many times that it is a volume problem. not specifically a problem with fructose itself, but does not really go into why it is a volume problem. My understanding of this is equilibrium. He also says that - it is known that in glycogen depleted endurance athletes Fructose is much quicker to replenish glycogen stores in the liver - ie it is a good thing for sports drinks to have HFCS (1:01:00 of the video) This last statement is fact, biochemistry shows it.
> 
> ...


 You and everybody else should watch this video. It's 90 minutes - but I guarantee you it is worth it.







```
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM
```


----------



## iheartbicycles (Mar 14, 2008)

seemlessstate said:


> it's that most of the time (normal foods, not fitness/organic stuff), it is made from genetically modified corn.
> 
> your body transforms all sorts of starches into various sugars, that it then uses for fuel. chew on a saltine for about a minute, and all of a sudden it turns sweet. this is because of an enzyme in your saliva that transforms the starch from the cracker into glucose before it hits the mechanical digestion in your stomach, and finally absorption in your small intestine.
> 
> so saying "fructose/sugar" is bad, is a bit of a misconception. I believe it is more of what the sugar is made from, and how it is processed. ever seen how they make HFCS? its a pretty chemically involved process. its hard to even call it food by the end.


There are different types of sugars and they are processed differently.

Fructose - sugar from fruit. 80% of it is metabolized by the liver. This is bad, taxes the liver and ends up creating more fat cells.

Sucrose - metabolized by the GI tract. This is good.

Lactose - milk sugar - if you don't have lactase or lactobacillus, you know that this sugar is processed differently. But atleast lactose is still metabolized by the GI, and not the liver.

Etc, etc.

It really is important to learn about the different sugars. Just like we all understand the difference between "good and bad" fats (saturated, unsaturated), sugars vary widely, too.


----------



## Ptor (Jan 29, 2004)

iheartbicycles said:


> Fructose - sugar from fruit. 80% of it is metabolized by the liver. This is bad, taxes the liver and ends up creating more fat cells.


What's bad is too much fructose. The amount of high fructose corn syrup consumed by western society on a per capita basis is stunning, and the increase since the '70's is coincident with the increases in obesity and Type II diabetes. Don't worry about eating your apples and oranges -- your liver can handle it.

It's been my opinion for quite some time that far too much emphasis has been placed on sugar consumption prior to and during endurance events. It takes a lot of luck not to use too much or too little of your favorite sugary supplement and blow your race with either a bonk or intense intestinal discomfort (most of that by the way is due to gut bacteria having a jolly old time metabolizing excess gatoraide/heed/perpetuem). Mountain bike endurance racing is an aerobic activity, one that's fueled just fine by fat, and all but the most skinny of professional road racers will roll up to the starting line with enough on their body to take them to the finish of an 8 hour race, even when riding at a pretty good clip. If you learn to recognize your personal signals, just a bit of fast-acting carbs will keep you from bonking. So much of what many try to do is match calories expended by ingesting some sort of magic elixir -- seriously, the magic elixir is the fat you have on board at the start line coupled with a trained cardiovascular system.

(p.s. - road racing for long distances/times is NOT the same as mtb endurance racing. Road races are all about going anaerobic over-and-over -- answering attacks, staying with the field at all costs, closing gaps, etc. There you need to have adequate sugars in your system to deal with anaerobic energy production. I have never bonked in any significant way during a mtb endurance race, but I've gone so deep into the hole in road bike races that I wasn't sure I could stay upright on a flat road.)


----------



## sandmangts (Feb 16, 2004)

rob_co2 said:


> I still don't get why the bleached products like white sugar and white flour are cheaper and more popular than the lesser refined product- which has more taste, more nutrition, and should theoretically cost less to produce.
> QUOTE]
> It's pretty simple, highly processed foods last longer meaing you can produce in large quantities without it going bad in storage. Foods that must be shipped quickly cost more because there is more risk of loss if it does not sell quickly.


----------



## jrastories (Aug 2, 2008)

iheartbicycles said:


> You and everybody else should watch this video. It's 90 minutes - but I guarantee you it is worth it.


This is the video that I was referring to. (Definitely take the time to check out the video) As I said I completely understand why it is bad for the average population. I know what it will do to me I was just wondering if somebody could tell me why they hate HFCS. People with GI issues I can buy. Processing is processing, that comes down to all the other preservatives that are put into the foods that we eat which are hard to filter out of the body.

Somebody asked why refined sugar and white flower is cheaper, it also has to do with politics, the same as why HFCS and other corn byproducts are used in everything, it is all heavily subsidized.

As for the person who said that sucrose is digested by the GI tract that is only half the story sucrose is a disaccharide - 1 fructose + 1 glucose so the fructose still needs to be processed by the liver, and my understanding is that Fructose can only be processed by the liver but is quite good at doing it, as long as you can keep everything in equilibrium.


----------



## gila monster (Feb 19, 2011)

Biochemical rant...

Table sugar (sucrose) is a glucose and a fructose connected by an alpha 1,4 bond. So it is 50% fructose. Just like with starch, maltose or lactose that bond is hydrolyzed and the mono saccharides are absorbed and metabolized through glycolytic pathways. They are all just fuel. Your (and all) cells run primarily by metabolizing glucose. Other molecules including fats and proteins are broken down and the parts are dumped as intermediates into the same exact metabolic pathways that are used to break down glucose. 

Excess calories from any carbohydrate (not just fructose) will be diverted to fatty acid synthesis. It doesn't matter if it is fructose or glucose they will be converted to acetyl-CoA and used to make fat. When fat is burned it is broken down back into acetyl-CoA and is dumped back into the same metabolic pathway that metabolizes glucose and other carbs. Cells run on sugars, extra sugars are converted to fat and fat is metabolized as sugars.

There isn't a thing wrong with sucrose, fructose, glucose, alcohol, starch, bleached flower, etc. as far as your health goes. They are all naturally occurring organic (in the chemistry sense) molecules that your cells can process without difficulty. The problem with any of these things is the percentage of your calories you get from each and/or if you are getting too many calories because of them. There is an epidemic of type II diabetes because people are obese not because of fructose.

Beware of anecdotal claims of the effects of various foods. Everybody has their own unique physiology and metabolism. Some of us can run very well on a high carb diet and others need lower carbs and more fat for example. Some people are lactose intolerant others thrive on milk products. 

It is silly to vilify a naturally occurring molecule like fructose. Humans have been eating loads of that stuff for thousands of years, it's in fruit.


----------



## jrastories (Aug 2, 2008)

To gila I have the same views on biochemistry that is why I posed the question


----------



## mudge (May 15, 2010)

http://tinyurl.com/3zbop23

This guy seems to disagree with the 'fructose = sucrose' mindset.


----------



## Lucky Luciano (Aug 26, 2009)

This is like arguing over McDonalds vs KFC. Fructose, sucrose and glucose are all simple carbs that should be taken in small dosages and they aren't good for endurance. Instead look at stuff that contains maltodextrin. Isostar contains both glucose and maltodextrin but they don't say in which ratio. Some High5 gels and powders contain mainly maltodextrin, though. I'm sure there are more brands.

Before the ride you can get complex carbs from pasta(esp the one made from durum wheat such as Barilla) or oats.


----------



## electrik (Oct 22, 2009)

Fructose isn't sucrose. Sucrose has two simple sugars in it, fructose and glucose.

If anything, I don't like sucrose drinks because they will give you cavities.

Using a maltodextrin based drink like HEED(or your own mix from a beer brewer) provides a sugar with multiple components, all of which are broken down to glucose... that skips the fructose issue.

Recently I read that fruit isn't so bad for you since it contains anti-oxidants to reduce free radicals released by fructose use and pulps which buffer the fructose from entering the bloodstream. Besides eating and orange is a lot more satisfying than drinking Gatorade.


----------



## iheartbicycles (Mar 14, 2008)

Lucky Luciano said:


> This is like arguing over McDonalds vs KFC. Fructose, sucrose and glucose are all simple carbs that should be taken in small dosages and they aren't good for endurance. Instead look at stuff that contains maltodextrin. Isostar contains both glucose and maltodextrin but they don't say in which ratio. Some High5 gels and powders contain mainly maltodextrin, though. I'm sure there are more brands.
> 
> Before the ride you can get complex carbs from pasta(esp the one made from durum wheat such as Barilla) or oats.


You're showing a misunderstanding of the issue. Did you watch the video? HFCS is in EVERYTHING. You almost can't escape it. Watch the video, you'll appreciate it.


----------



## Rivet (Sep 3, 2004)

gila monster said:


> Biochemical rant...
> 
> Table sugar (sucrose) is a glucose and a fructose connected by an alpha 1,4 bond. So it is 50% fructose. Just like with starch, maltose or lactose that bond is hydrolyzed and the mono saccharides are absorbed and metabolized through glycolytic pathways. They are all just fuel. Your (and all) cells run primarily by metabolizing glucose. Other molecules including fats and proteins are broken down and the parts are dumped as intermediates into the same exact metabolic pathways that are used to break down glucose.
> 
> ...


Science and reasoning for the win! ^


----------



## iheartbicycles (Mar 14, 2008)

Rivet said:


> Science and reasoning for the win! ^


Except for the fact that fructose and alcohol are metabolized via a completely different pathway than every other sugar. This being the liver.

Hence the fat storage, and tendancy towards hunger, which induces more consumption and etc.


----------



## Rivet (Sep 3, 2004)

iheartbicycles said:


> Except for the fact that fructose and alcohol are metabolized via a completely different pathway than every other sugar. This being the liver.
> 
> Hence the fat storage, and tendancy towards hunger, which induces more consumption and etc.


To repeat, there is nothing wrong with fructose, it's just that our nation of phat phucks eat too much of everything which means high amounts of fructose. It's like saying you should not drink water because people drown in it.


----------



## Rivet (Sep 3, 2004)

iheartbicycles said:


> HFCS is in EVERYTHING. You almost can't escape it.


Bullcrap. It's in a lot of shitty food, if a person takes even a small interest in how they eat they can avoid it quite easily, but why should some fat lazy people have to care about their health, Oprah says it's not their fault.


----------



## Team Fubar Rider (Sep 3, 2003)

jrastories said:


> Somebody asked why refined sugar and white flower is cheaper, it also has to do with politics, the same as why HFCS and other corn byproducts are used in everything, it is all heavily subsidized.


I just stumbled into this thread and I love it. I have so much stuff floating around in my head about this I don't know where to start...

I personally have a HUGE issue with the corn subsidies. I live in the heart of farm/ranch land and I don't have an issue with keeping the American family farm going, but to continue to subsidize the corn industry is NOT good for the farmers (which is part of the reason why the giant corporate farm has grown).

The whole corn syrup in everything started to happen back during WWII when everything was being rationed for our troops (including sugar). We had the whole "better living through chemistry" mentality going on in this country and we found a way to make a sweetener. I realize corn syrup wasn't "invented" in WWII and it was in some things prior to this, but it came into vogue during this time. This started the ball rolling.

Then, through the 70's/80's when our farmers were trying to compete, there were subsidies given through the government trying to keep the farmers afloat during a depressed market instead of letting the market do it's thing and having some of these farmer switch to a different crop, thus reducing the supply which in turn would increase the price. During this time when corn was kept artificially cheap, the penny pinchers in the big "food" companies discovered that they could increase profits by using HFCS instead of "real" sugar.

Now, we're still subsidizing the corn growers and they're using this prime farm land that could be used for growing food to truly feed our nation (and others) to grow corn for HFCS and ethanol to feed our cars. Something DRASTICALLY wrong with this in my book.

I look at it this way. Any of those "fuels" are great for us (or anyone doing any sort of physical activity) during the activity. BUT, and it's a big one, for all those sedentary people out there, what do they feed cattle to fatten them up just before they take 'em to slaughter? Corn.


----------



## jrastories (Aug 2, 2008)

electrik said:


> Using a maltodextrin based drink like HEED(or your own mix from a beer brewer) provides a sugar with multiple components, all of which are broken down to glucose... that skips the fructose issue.


Again take a look at the video at the 60 min mark fructose will regenerate glycogen faster then any other substrate in a situation of glycogen depletion. Therefor it is good to have different types of sugars, moderation is key.

I am pretty sure that Gatorade is still the most INDEPENDENTLY studied sports drink out there. I will say that most of them have to do with concentration and substrate usage.


----------



## electrik (Oct 22, 2009)

jrastories said:


> Again take a look at the video at the 60 min mark fructose will regenerate glycogen faster then any other substrate in a situation of glycogen depletion. Therefor it is good to have different types of sugars, moderation is key.
> 
> I am pretty sure that Gatorade is still the most INDEPENDENTLY studied sports drink out there. I will say that most of them have to do with concentration and substrate usage.


Sure, but the point is that fructose is metabolized differently and behaves differently in your stomach and small intestine. Toss in the fact that you may end up with a fatty liver and a mouth full of cavities from eating gels and sucrosey drinks... it doesn't seem to be the optimal choice.


----------



## jrastories (Aug 2, 2008)

but I mix my sucrose drinks in tap water. That has fluoride in it already so I have the fluoride to combat the cavities :thumbsup:


----------



## jtmartino (Jul 31, 2008)

iheartbicycles said:


> Except for the fact that fructose and alcohol are metabolized via a completely different pathway than every other sugar. This being the liver.
> 
> Hence the fat storage, and tendancy towards hunger, which induces more consumption and etc.


You're absolutely right. While fructose is not bad for the body in an absolute sense, high amounts of fructose, or getting most of your carbs in fructose form, is absolutely detrimental to health.



gila monster said:


> Biochemical rant...
> 
> There isn't a thing wrong with sucrose, fructose, glucose, alcohol, starch, bleached flower, etc. as far as your health goes. They are all naturally occurring organic (in the chemistry sense) molecules that your cells can process without difficulty. The problem with any of these things is the percentage of your calories you get from each and/or if you are getting too many calories because of them. There is an epidemic of type II diabetes because people are obese not because of fructose.
> .


Clearly your biochemistry knowledge, while substantial, does not equate to general physiology knowledge. While your assertion that sugar is not harmful in moderated amounts, you are completely wrong in your statement that Type 2 diabetes is not caused by fructose. In fact, it is believed to be the primary cause of Type 2 diabetes, researchers have found.

Dietary fructose increases uric acid in the bloodstream which has been shown to lead to leptin and insulin resistance, causing Diabetes. Since leptin is the hormone primarily responsible for controlling satiety in your hypothalamus, a lack of the signal will prevent people from feeling "full," even after they've reached their caloric requirement in a meal. This means people will eat much more fructose than they would glucose in a same meal, and not feel as full. What does that mean? People get fatter off fructose than they do from glucose, and they also get diabetes from consuming too much fructose.

So excess fructose causes large amounts of simple sugars to become ingested into the body and converted into fat. It also causes insulin resistance, meaning that other sugars are not processed efficiently. Lastly, the metabolized fructose that has been converted into fat will often remain in the liver, impairing the organ's ability to function and putting stress on it similar to cirrhosis.

While fructose itself isn't bad, too much fructose is very bad indeed. It's more than just a "bad sugar" - it causes disease. And the problem with the world is that we rely upon it too heavily as our primary sweetener. Which is why people are far more fat now than 50 years ago.


----------



## jtmartino (Jul 31, 2008)

Back to the OPs question - I agree with you that fructose is fine in moderation. Research has also shown that a glucose + fructose mixture yields superior results for endurance athletes than glucose alone, due to the increase in plasma lactate caused by metabolism of fructose in the liver. The increase in lactate yields larger amounts of glycogen when metabolized in the muscles during exercise.

So, use what you like, and don't be afraid of fructose. Unless you live a sedentary lifestyle...then you should stay away from it.


----------



## misanthrope (Mar 30, 2009)

jtmartino said:


> Research has also shown that a glucose + fructose mixture yields superior results for endurance athletes than glucose alone


Saw that literature.



jtmartino said:


> due to the increase in plasma lactate caused by metabolism of fructose in the liver. The increase in lactate yields larger amounts of glycogen when metabolized in the muscles during exercise.


Didn't see that literature. Most sources I can find note very little to no gluconeogenesis in muscle, so I'm not seeing how lactate ends up leading to more glycogen in muscle. The Cori cycle or Glucose-Alanine cycle are the classic ways to get to glucose from lactate -- and that means gluconeogenesis in the liver, with the glucose being shipped back to peripheral tissues (e.g. - muscle). Can you provide the refs about lactate yielding larger amount of glycogen in the muscle? Or maybe I'm not understanding your last sentence quoted above.

Not trying to be a pain here -- this discussion has made me look more closely at fructose metabolism and for that I thank you all. But a lot of the biochemistry quoted here is way off -- too much Wikipedia/youtube videos and not enough Lehninger.

But as more than a few in this thread have said, eating fruit and getting fructose that way won't hurt you and it's even good for you -- good even for the couch potatoes among us. But pigging out on candy-corn/Pepsi Max/Aunt Jemimah Pancake Syrup will blow you up like a balloon...


----------



## iheartbicycles (Mar 14, 2008)

Rivet said:


> To repeat, there is nothing wrong with fructose, it's just that our nation of phat phucks eat too much of everything which means high amounts of fructose. It's like saying you should not drink water because people drown in it.


Do yourself a favor. Google "Leptin."

Then Google ' Leptin Fructose."


----------



## iheartbicycles (Mar 14, 2008)

jtmartino said:


> Back to the OPs question - I agree with you that fructose is fine in moderation. Research has also shown that a glucose + fructose mixture yields superior results for endurance athletes than glucose alone, due to the increase in plasma lactate caused by metabolism of fructose in the liver. The increase in lactate yields larger amounts of glycogen when metabolized in the muscles during exercise.
> 
> So, use what you like, and don't be afraid of fructose. Unless you live a sedentary lifestyle...then you should stay away from it.


It's also been shown than fructose is better at restoring liver sugar stores, because fructose hits the liver directly. Basically drinking gatorade after exercise is good.


----------



## Rivet (Sep 3, 2004)

iheartbicycles said:


> Do yourself a favor. Google "Leptin."
> 
> Then Google ' Leptin Fructose."


So eating high fat foods after consuming fructose leads to weight gain? Well no schit.


----------



## jtmartino (Jul 31, 2008)

Rivet said:


> So eating high fat foods after consuming fructose leads to weight gain? Well no schit.


No, you clearly don't understand the concept here. Fructose decreases leptin in the bloodstream, making people eat more. The end.


----------



## jtmartino (Jul 31, 2008)

misanthrope said:


> Saw that literature.
> 
> Didn't see that literature. Most sources I can find note very little to no gluconeogenesis in muscle, so I'm not seeing how lactate ends up leading to more glycogen in muscle. The Cori cycle or Glucose-Alanine cycle are the classic ways to get to glucose from lactate -- and that means gluconeogenesis in the liver, with the glucose being shipped back to peripheral tissues (e.g. - muscle). Can you provide the refs about lactate yielding larger amount of glycogen in the muscle? Or maybe I'm not understanding your last sentence quoted above.
> 
> ...


Yeah my bad, should have said "for," not "in." Fructose and plasma lactate created by fructose are metabolized into glycogen by the liver, which provides more energy than just glucose straight to muscle tissues.

Basically, it's better to have your liver involved when exercising.

And I pulled out my copy of Lehninger last night after work - good stuff there.


----------



## -bb- (Feb 3, 2005)

gila monster said:


> Biochemical rant...
> 
> There isn't a thing wrong with sucrose, fructose, glucose, alcohol, starch, bleached flower, etc. as far as your health goes. They are all naturally occurring organic (in the chemistry sense) molecules that your cells can process without difficulty. .


You heard it here...* the best drink for bringing on a ride is BEER!!*

Alcohol, starches, sugars plus good things like Vitamin D etc.


----------



## Rivet (Sep 3, 2004)

jtmartino said:


> No, you clearly don't understand the concept here. Fructose decreases leptin in the bloodstream, making people eat more. The end.


Eat more? So your saying fat people are too stupid to know when they should stop eating because Fructose makes them hungry? Uhhh, I've had three pizzas but I still feel hungry, I should probably have a fourth. You can sit here and demonize fructose but in the end it's just another chemical we chose or not chose to put into our bodies, it's lack of personal responsibility that is the real culprit in our obese society.


----------



## Rivet (Sep 3, 2004)

jtmartino said:


> No, you clearly don't understand the concept here. Fructose decreases leptin in the bloodstream, making people eat more. The end.


Eat more? So your saying fat people are too stupid to know when they should stop eating because Fructose makes them hungry? Uhhh, I've had three pizzas but I still feel hungry, I should probably have a fourth. You can sit here and demonize fructose but in the end it's just another chemical we chose or not chose to put into our bodies, it's lack of personal responsibility that is the real culprit in our obese society.


----------



## jtmartino (Jul 31, 2008)

Rivet said:


> Eat more? So your saying fat people are too stupid to know when they should stop eating because Fructose makes them hungry? Uhhh, I've had three pizzas but I still feel hungry, I should probably have a fourth. You can sit here and demonize fructose but in the end it's just another chemical we chose or not chose to put into our bodies, it's lack of personal responsibility that is the real culprit in our obese society.


Once again, you miss the point. Frucstose doesn't make people hungrier - it decreases the hormone that tells people that they are full. Ghrelin is the hormone that makes people hungrier, not leptin. Not full is not the same as hungry, according to the human body.

And once again, the problem with fructose is that it's in way too many foods. The intention here is not to demonize fructose - it's to explain why it's a bad substance to have in so many types of food, and to eat in excess. Basically why fructose is very different than glucose, and how fructose causes obesity and diabetes much faster than glucose.

And I absolutely agree with you that lack of personal responsibility is the primary reason why people are obese, along with education. I think that if people knew and understood why large amounts of fructose is bad for them, they'd make choices to eat less of it.


----------



## jrastories (Aug 2, 2008)

Thanks guys I feel better that I understand a little bit of what is going on, I will take some time and look up Lehninger to see if it is any different then the textbooks that I have. The one big thing that I learned is that I really do enjoy thinking about these topics critically, I have been debating if I am going to go back to school and these types of discussions just push me to go back to grad school.


----------



## beanbag (Nov 20, 2005)

From that "bitter truth" video.

Fructose is a toxin. Oh, but fruit is ok. 

What else does fruit have? Some fiber and micronutrients. 
So is it ok if I have some toxic sweets, as long as I buffer it with some Metamucil and a Centrum?


----------



## electrik (Oct 22, 2009)

beanbag said:


> From that "bitter truth" video.
> 
> Fructose is a toxin. Oh, but fruit is ok.
> 
> ...


Only if you think mixing fructose, Metamucil and Centrum are the equivalent of fruit!


----------



## jtmartino (Jul 31, 2008)

beanbag said:


> From that "bitter truth" video.
> 
> Fructose is a toxin. Oh, but fruit is ok.
> 
> ...


Most fruit has a "normal" and acceptable amount of fructose, when consumed at a normal rate. Obviously over consumption of fruit will yield the same effect as eating HFCS-laden food.

And yes, eating fiber will offset the impact of eating sweets, for the reasons described in the video.


----------



## Alphatone (Jun 16, 2006)

PeT said:


> What's bad is too much fructose. The amount of high fructose corn syrup consumed by western society on a per capita basis is stunning, and the increase since the '70's is coincident with the increases in obesity and Type II diabetes. Don't worry about eating your apples and oranges -- your liver can handle it.
> 
> It's been my opinion for quite some time that far too much emphasis has been placed on sugar consumption prior to and during endurance events. It takes a lot of luck not to use too much or too little of your favorite sugary supplement and blow your race with either a bonk or intense intestinal discomfort (most of that by the way is due to gut bacteria having a jolly old time metabolizing excess gatoraide/heed/perpetuem). Mountain bike endurance racing is an aerobic activity, one that's fueled just fine by fat, and all but the most skinny of professional road racers will roll up to the starting line with enough on their body to take them to the finish of an 8 hour race, even when riding at a pretty good clip. If you learn to recognize your personal signals, just a bit of fast-acting carbs will keep you from bonking. So much of what many try to do is match calories expended by ingesting some sort of magic elixir -- seriously, the magic elixir is the fat you have on board at the start line coupled with a trained cardiovascular system.
> 
> (p.s. - road racing for long distances/times is NOT the same as mtb endurance racing. Road races are all about going anaerobic over-and-over -- answering attacks, staying with the field at all costs, closing gaps, etc. There you need to have adequate sugars in your system to deal with anaerobic energy production. I have never bonked in any significant way during a mtb endurance race, but I've gone so deep into the hole in road bike races that I wasn't sure I could stay upright on a flat road.)


What he said. Very accurate in my experience.


----------



## iheartbicycles (Mar 14, 2008)

jtmartino said:


> Most fruit has a "normal" and acceptable amount of fructose, when consumed at a normal rate. Obviously over consumption of fruit will yield the same effect as eating HFCS-laden food.
> 
> And yes, eating fiber will offset the impact of eating sweets, for the reasons described in the video.


Over consumption of fruit won't yield the same results and eating HFCS laden foods, because those foods generally don't have the fiber component to slow digestion, the way fruit does.


----------



## jtmartino (Jul 31, 2008)

iheartbicycles said:


> Over consumption of fruit won't yield the same results and eating HFCS laden foods, because those foods generally don't have the fiber component to slow digestion, the way fruit does.


It depends on the fruit, as different fruit have different fructose concentrations. If you eat enough fructose in fruit, no amount of fiber can fix the damage.


----------



## 67Xer (Aug 18, 2011)

Natural sugars on their own- not an issue except for the sedentary.
Chemically processed and GM sugars- not good for anyone- that is 85%+ of what is added to food and drink found at the market.

And...eating fat makes you fat is a MYTH. Fat is energy. Eating the wrong fats (vegetable oils- specifically soybean and canola, GM corn, etc.) are the problem.


----------



## jtmartino (Jul 31, 2008)

67Xer said:


> Natural sugars on their own- not an issue except for the sedentary.
> Chemically processed and GM sugars- not good for anyone- that is 85%+ of what is added to food and drink found at the market.


Natural sugars contain fructose also. It's not better for you because it's naturally made...it's the exact same thing.

You should spend more time reading the posts in this thread to get on the same page as everyone else.


----------



## 67Xer (Aug 18, 2011)

jtmartino said:


> Natural sugars contain fructose also. It's not better for you because it's naturally made...it's the exact same thing.
> 
> You should spend more time reading the posts in this thread to get on the same page as everyone else.


A. I read the posts.
B. I know what sugars are and their composition. Natural and chemically/genetically altered sugars are not "the exact same thing".
C. Where did I interject fructose in my comment?
D. I have to be on page...what does that mean...in agreement (with you) to post a comment?

Because you earned it:


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

67Xer said:


> B. Natural and chemically/genetically altered sugars are not "the exact same thing".


Do you have any data you could link to that would back this up?


----------



## jtmartino (Jul 31, 2008)

67Xer said:


> A. I read the posts.
> B. I know what sugars are and their composition. Natural and chemically/genetically altered sugars are not "the exact same thing".
> C. Where did I interject fructose in my comment?
> D. I have to be on page...what does that mean...in agreement (with you) to post a comment?
> ...


You obviously haven't done the research as many of the people discussing the issue on this thread. You shouldn't make false statements that you can't back up, especially since you don't know what you're talking about. Not trying to be a d!ck...just trying to stop misinformation from spreading around the web.

The reason why mass-produced sugar (HFCS) is bad for you is because of the fructose component, not because of its manufacturing process. It's not organic vs. GMO, it's glucose vs. fructose (and others.) And you didn't talk about fructose, but you should, because it's the point of the thread and the only thing that really matters.

I'm thinking that you're one of those people who fears mass-produced or GMO food because you were told by someone that it was bad for you, but you didn't actually do any research on your own. You probably don't even know what genetic modifications are done to GMO crops like sugar beets.

If you want to come out and make bold statements, back them up with research.


----------



## iheartbicycles (Mar 14, 2008)

jtmartino said:


> You obviously haven't done the research as many of the people discussing the issue on this thread. You shouldn't make false statements that you can't back up, especially since you don't know what you're talking about. Not trying to be a d!ck...just trying to stop misinformation from spreading around the web.
> 
> The reason why mass-produced sugar (HFCS) is bad for you is because of the fructose component, not because of its manufacturing process. It's not organic vs. GMO, it's glucose vs. fructose (and others.) And you didn't talk about fructose, but you should, because it's the point of the thread and the only thing that really matters.
> 
> ...


would be interested in your take on beanbags post in my thread on the norcal forum. He is arguing HFCS has no different impact on the metabolism than any other sugar, based on fructose is almost always paired with glucose.

http://forums.mtbr.com/california-norcal/ot-sugar-bitter-truth-discussion-diet-health-738541.html


----------



## jtmartino (Jul 31, 2008)

iheartbicycles said:


> would be interested in your take on beanbags post in my thread on the norcal forum. He is arguing HFCS has no different impact on the metabolism than any other sugar, based on fructose is almost always paired with glucose.
> 
> http://forums.mtbr.com/california-norcal/ot-sugar-bitter-truth-discussion-diet-health-738541.html


When fructose is paired with glucose (as in sucrose,) it's no different than fructose on its own. Beanbag's article indicates that sucrose is the same as HFCS, but that's completely wrong. Sucrose is a disaccharide, with one glucose bonded to one fructose. HFCS contains a higher ratio of fructose to glucose. This ratio is variable and can be up to 75% fructose (or more.) HFCS has been shown to cause obesity much faster than sucrose on its own:

Princeton University - A sweet problem: Princeton researchers find that high-fructose corn syrup prompts considerably more weight gain

This information is not really relevant for preloading and satiety, considering that sucrose and HFCS have similar effects on satiety short-term. The difference is that fructose is harmful long-term in regards to leptin secretion and resistance.

Speaking of satiety, Rodin's study (linked in beanbag's article) indicates that preloading with artificial sweeteners has no effect on satiety. This is wrong, and proven so in multiple studies like this one:

Effects of stevia, aspartame, and sucrose on food i... [Appetite. 2010] - PubMed - NCBI

Additionally, while Rodin's research is entertaining, some of her study designs don't make sense, like testing satiety 38 minutes after preloading. Short-term satiety response is irrelevant to someone who consumes HFCS all day. People seem to forget that the leptin feedback loop is a long-term hormonal signaling process.

It's all good information, and worthy of discussion (like the effects of dietary cholesterol.)


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

According to the USDA, 24% of HFCS consists of water, and the rest sugars. The most widely used varieties of high-fructose corn syrup are: HFCS 55 (mostly used in soft drinks), approximately 55% fructose and 42% glucose; and HFCS 42 (used in many foods and baked goods), approximately 42% fructose and 53% glucose.[5] HFCS-90, approximately 90% fructose and 10% glucose, is used in small quantities for specialty applications, but primarily is used to blend with HFCS 42 to make HFCS 55.[6]

High-fructose corn syrup - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

jtmartino said:


> HFCS has been shown to cause obesity much faster than sucrose on its own:
> 
> Princeton University - A sweet problem: Princeton researchers find that high-fructose corn syrup prompts considerably more weight gain


This article does a pretty good job of debunking that Princeton study, in my opinion.

Is High Fructose Corn Syrup Worse Than Regular Sugar? » Weightology Weekly


----------



## 67Xer (Aug 18, 2011)

jtmartino said:


> You obviously haven't done the research as many of the people discussing the issue on this thread. You shouldn't make false statements that you can't back up, especially since you don't know what you're talking about. Not trying to be a d!ck...just trying to stop misinformation from spreading around the web.
> 
> The reason why mass-produced sugar (HFCS) is bad for you is because of the fructose component, not because of its manufacturing process. It's not organic vs. GMO, it's glucose vs. fructose (and others.) And you didn't talk about fructose, but you should, because it's the point of the thread and the only thing that really matters.
> 
> ...


You are quite adept at making assumptions. I see now what I am dealing with and bow. ETA- I am actually in agreement with you on fructose/glucose, but not on manufacturing standards and types. There is enough study and results to back both arguments. Still, you mischaracterize me rather quickly. You may be surprised at my background. Just wanted to point out this is not posted with adversarial intent- you just came on exactly as you did not intend. Carry on.


----------



## jtmartino (Jul 31, 2008)

67Xer said:


> You are quite adept at making assumptions. I see now what I am dealing with and bow. ETA- I am actually in agreement with you on fructose/glucose, but not on manufacturing standards and types. There is enough study and results to back both arguments. Still, you mischaracterize me rather quickly. You may be surprised at my background. Just wanted to point out this is not posted with adversarial intent- you just came on exactly as you did not intend. Carry on.


There's a lot of unfounded fear of processed and GMO food out there. People are afraid of "genetically modified" food, but farmers have been creating GMO food for centuries. Splicing two plants together manually is one such way of genetic modification, to control which plants flower and the size of fruit produced. It doesn't require chemicals, but it still affects the genetics of the progeny. This is GMO food that people have no trouble eating, and many don't even realize it's GMO. On the other hand, there are dangerous GMO foods out there that have an impact on both people as a consumer as well as the environment.

Based upon the research that exists, I don't think people need to be too worried about GMO sugar-producing plants.

I'm referring specifically to the "Roundup Ready" GMO sugar beets created by Monsanto. The company derived a naturally occurring glyphosphate (Roundup) resistance gene from a type of agrobacterium (CP4 EPSPS) and spliced it into plants. Extensive research has shown that the primary drawback of these crops is not health-related, but that the application of glyphosphate as weed control often limits the nutrient uptake into the beet itself, which can be fixed by adding more nutrients into the soil.

It's my understanding that the way the sugar is refined, none of the genetic modifications make their way into the processed sugar. Any unnatural compounds are filtered out and not actually consumed by people. Pesticides, on the other hand, are more of an issue than anything else (and will affect regular sugars too.)

So, the true threat with HFCS does not lie within its origins as GMO plants, but rather the fact that fructose has been shown to damage liver and induce diabetes and insulin resistance in people. Feel free to post information to the contrary, I know people would want to read both sides.


----------



## beanbag (Nov 20, 2005)

jtmartino said:


> Speaking of satiety, Rodin's study (linked in beanbag's article) indicates that preloading with artificial sweeteners has no effect on satiety. This is wrong, and proven so in multiple studies like this one:
> 
> Effects of stevia, aspartame, and sucrose on food i... [Appetite. 2010] - PubMed - NCBI


I'm pretty sure Alan Aragon knows the difference between the chemical composition of HFCS and sucrose.

This is what he had to say about the Princeton rat study, in the comments section of the blog post:
"The Princeton study is a weak case against HFCS, especially in terms of its supposed evil compared to sucrose. To begin with, when it comes to carbohydrate metabolism, humans and rats differ considerably. Secondly, sucrose controls were missing in the long-term phases of the experiment. This renders it impossible for the investigators to conclude that HFCS is uniquely lipogenic compared to sucrose. But this is neither here nor there, since the rats in the study consumed the human daily equivalent of 3000 kcals from HFCS. This is why I have to smile & shake my head whenever someone mentions the Princeton Rat Fiasco."

Also, I don't know what point you are trying to make in your quoted satiety study.


----------



## jtmartino (Jul 31, 2008)

beanbag said:


> I'm pretty sure Alan Aragon knows the difference between the chemical composition of HFCS and sucrose.


If he knew the difference, he wouldn't say "[h]igh-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is nearly identical to sucrose in structure and function." They have different digestion rates and different concentrations of fructose, and therefore have different long-term effects on the body (primarily the liver.) We're talking hundreds of grams difference a week in the diet of your average obese junk-food eater.



beanbag said:


> Also, I don't know what point you are trying to make in your quoted satiety study.


I was pointing out data that conflicts with one of Rodin's studies quoted by Aragon. The study showed that 38 minutes after preloading with an artificial sweetener, subjects didn't experience a satiety response. That data conflicts with the results of the study I linked, which has a better design than Rodin's 38 minute buffet analysis.

The summary here is that Aragon's arguments are based upon short-term satiety, which is not the same as long-term physiological changes caused by overconsumption of fructose. I do agree with him when he states that "[l]ike anything else, fructose consumed in gross chronic excess can lead to problems, while moderate amounts are neutral, and in some cases beneficial." The problem for many people is that fructose is in nearly everything they eat, so they do consume it in gross chronic excess.

That's the point Lustig makes - fructose is everywhere, and people consume it in gross chronic excess. It's likely to be the primary cause of Type II diabetes in obese people, due to the mechanisms he describes. No, it's not dangerous in small amounts, but 100+ oz of soda per day plus snacks filled with HFCS seems to be the norm for many Americans. This kind of abuse will cause health problems for people, bottom line.


----------



## Rivet (Sep 3, 2004)

jtmartino said:


> No, it's not dangerous in small amounts, but 100+ oz of soda per day plus snacks filled with HFCS seems to be the norm for many Americans. This kind of abuse will cause health problems for people, bottom line.


And this is the crux of the argument, fat people are fat because they eat too much of the wrong food and don't exercise enough. All of the fatty apologists in the world aren't going to change this.


----------



## queevil (Feb 17, 2009)

Phuck reading anymore of this crap. I'm gonna go eat some Fun Dip.


----------



## electrik (Oct 22, 2009)

queevil said:


> Phuck reading anymore of this crap. I'm gonna go eat some Fun Dip.


Do they even make that anymore? Pure win.


----------



## queevil (Feb 17, 2009)

Hell yeah they do. It even changes colors in your mouth which kinda gives it an element of danger if ya ask me.


----------



## TunicaTrails (Jun 29, 2009)

Consume fructose immediately before or during exercise and it's a friend. Any other time and it goes directly to fat stores.


----------



## beanbag (Nov 20, 2005)

TunicaTrails said:


> Consume fructose immediately before or during exercise and it's a friend. Any other time and it goes directly to fat stores.


This is wrong. Fructose can be directed towards glycogen synthesis, and not always triglyceride, even during periods of no physical activity. Eating fruit won't make you fat. I read about it on wikipedia.


----------



## beanbag (Nov 20, 2005)

jtmartino said:


> If he knew the difference, he wouldn't say "[h]igh-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is nearly identical to sucrose in structure and function." They have different digestion rates and different concentrations of fructose, and therefore have different long-term effects on the body (primarily the liver.) We're talking hundreds of grams difference a week in the diet of your average obese junk-food eater.
> 
> That's the point Lustig makes - fructose is everywhere, and people consume it in gross chronic excess. It's likely to be the primary cause of Type II diabetes in obese people, due to the mechanisms he describes. No, it's not dangerous in small amounts, but 100+ oz of soda per day plus snacks filled with HFCS seems to be the norm for many Americans. This kind of abuse will cause health problems for people, bottom line.


We are talking about 55/42 vs 50/50 vs 42/53 once things hit the small intestine, so no, I don't think there is a big difference. Do you have any references besides the Princeton rat study that shows a difference between HFCS and sucrose? I have a bottle here of fruit juice that uses "cane sugar" instead of HFCS. In what ways are this drink less bad?

As for the satiety studies, the ones referenced by Aragon say:
1) fructose causes you to eat less than glucose or aspartame
2) (same)
3) umm, we dunno, it's complicated.

The one you link says sucrose acts the same as other non-sugar sweeteners.

So I don't see where the conflict is, and I don't see anything that says fructose makes you more hungry than any other sweet thing.

I agree with your bottom line, but I don't see why HFCS gets singled out over sugar in general.


----------



## bushido5 (Sep 27, 2010)

What is the difference between "Fructose" and "HFCS"? Fructose= naturally occuring sugar? HFCS= chemically produced sugar like product?


----------



## jtmartino (Jul 31, 2008)

beanbag said:


> We are talking about 55/42 vs 50/50 vs 42/53 once things hit the small intestine, so no, I don't think there is a big difference. Do you have any references besides the Princeton rat study that shows a difference between HFCS and sucrose? I have a bottle here of fruit juice that uses "cane sugar" instead of HFCS. In what ways are this drink less bad?


You're right, I got off-track. The original discussion here wasn't Sucrose vs. Fructose, it's Glucose vs. Fructose. However, difference in fructose level between HFCS and sucrose is clinically significant on the level of consumption of the average obese American. You may not think a 10% increase in fructose is a big deal, but we're talking hundreds of grams of sugar per day for many people. That 10% quickly adds up. Based upon recent research, discussed by Lustig, that excess of Fructose can be extra-harmful to people. That doesn't take away from the fact that they're both bad, and normal consumption yields metabolically similar effects.



beanbag said:


> As for the satiety studies, the ones referenced by Aragon say:
> 1) fructose causes you to eat less than glucose or aspartame
> 2) (same)
> 3) umm, we dunno, it's complicated.
> ...


You missed the point. I wasn't talking sucrose, I was talking artificial sweeteners. Rodin claimed that artificial sweeteners don't cause a satiety response. Many recent studies show conflicting data, including the one I linked. You can't base your entire belief system upon one person's research 20 years ago, when there's a ton of research being done today with conflicting data.

Rodin's article:

Comparative effects of fructose, aspartame, glucose, and water preloads on calorie and macronutrient intake

More current article with conflicting data:

Effects of stevia, aspartame, and sucrose on food i... [Appetite. 2010] - PubMed - NCBI



beanbag said:


> So I don't see where the conflict is, and I don't see anything that says fructose makes you more hungry than any other sweet thing.
> 
> I agree with your bottom line, but I don't see why HFCS gets singled out over sugar in general.


You (and Aragon) still miss the point - we are not just talking about short-term satiety. Fructose (and sucrose, because it contains fructose,) are believed to cause metabolic syndrome and Type 2 diabetes due to their metabolism. Glucose is very different. The point is that glucose-based food will not have the same effect on the human body as fructose-based foods.

If you don't know how fructose can cause these problems, then you didn't watch the video. If you prefer to read, here's an interesting article about this hypothesis:

http://edrv.endojournals.org/content/30/1/96.full


----------



## beanbag (Nov 20, 2005)

jtmartino said:


> You missed the point. I wasn't talking sucrose, I was talking artificial sweeteners. Rodin claimed that artificial sweeteners don't cause a satiety response. Many recent studies show conflicting data, including the one I linked. You can't base your entire belief system upon one person's research 20 years ago, when there's a ton of research being done today with conflicting data.
> 
> Rodin's article:
> 
> ...


Rodin's article was listed within a group of other articles that showed that fructose either made you less hungry, or at least not more hungry than other sweet drinks. They rebut Lustig's point that fructose makes you more hungry than a diet coke. The satiety point is that sweet drinks make you more hungry, and is not unique to fructose. Longer term relating to leptin, I would say that there are enough other factors that tweak your leptin levels that I'm not ready to blame fructose on that.



> You (and Aragon) still miss the point - we are not just talking about short-term satiety. Fructose (and sucrose, because it contains fructose,) are believed to cause metabolic syndrome and Type 2 diabetes due to their metabolism. Glucose is very different. The point is that glucose-based food will not have the same effect on the human body as fructose-based foods.
> 
> If you don't know how fructose can cause these problems, then you didn't watch the video. If you prefer to read, here's an interesting article about this hypothesis:
> 
> http://edrv.endojournals.org/content/30/1/96.full


I did watch the video (a while ago). That's why I am able to mock it by saying that fructose is a toxin (dramatic pause) but fruit is ok. First off, the lecture gives a bunch of results showing correlations but not causations. Does HFCS make you fat? Maybe it does and maybe it doesn't. This guy seems to think not:
Straight talk about high-fructose corn syrup: what it is and what it ain't. | BodyRecomposition - The Home of Lyle McDonald

"_In particular, I evaluate the strength of the popular hypothesis that HFCS is uniquely responsible for obesity. Although examples of pure fructose causing metabolic upset at high concentrations abound, especially when fed as the sole carbohydrate source, there is no evidence that the common fructose-glucose sweeteners do the same. Thus, studies using extreme carbohydrate diets may be useful for probing biochemical pathways, but they have no relevance to the human diet or to current consumption. I conclude that the HFCS-obesity hypothesis is supported neither in the United States nor worldwide._"

Then the lecture mentions a couple of biochemical pathways. The body is complicated enough with other feedback mechanisms that just because a pathway exists, does not mean you can draw conclusions from it. That's like if I gave a chemical reaction for the combustion of propane that creates carbon monoxide and then told you that having a BBQ can kill you, because CO is a toxin.

Glucose-based foods can also mess up your insulin and triglyceride levels just fine.

Mainly, Aragon's blog criticizes Lustig for not mentioning the amount of fructose that is considered safe. He quotes a few studies with a high end of 90g/day, low end 25, or average about 50 +/- mitigating factors, like exercise, vitamin c, omega 3, etc.

Does fructose cause leptin resistance or diabetes at high-ish concentrations? I dunno, maybe it does and maybe it doesn't. Is it based on rats that were fed inhuman amounts of pure fructose? The article you link is at least intellectually honest with a bunch of qualifiers and a list near the end with a few facts that don't seem to support their hypothesis. I see the new enemy is uric acid now.

BTW, the bodyrecomposition site has a few good articles on HFCS, Leptin, etc.
U can also read the comments section of Aragon's article, where a bunch of people, including Lustig, argue back and forth about stuff.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

Let's take a step back from the biochemistry a minute and go back to the bottom line that nobody seems to have a problem with.



> No, it's not dangerous in small amounts, but 100+ oz of soda per day plus snacks filled with HFCS seems to be the norm for many Americans. This kind of abuse will cause health problems for people, bottom line.


I think the real question has little to do with the biochemistry and more to do with the fact that people are consuming more sugar. The reading I've done seems to suggest that average calorie intake has not changed a lot. But since the 60's and 70's, the amount of processed food on the market has exploded. Soda consumption has gone from occasional treat to almost daily occurrence for a lot of people. You can often buy a bucket of the stuff at a convenience store for $1 or so. You get free soda refills at many restaurants. Soda in general is cheaper than a lot of alternatives.

The manufacturers of processed foods found HFCS to be cheaper than sucrose/cane sugar, so they're able to make sweet stuff for cheaper with HFCS. As touched on before, the corn subsidies artificially deflate prices of corn products (including HFCS).

There seems to be some evidence for sugar addiction mechanisms, too. So with companies making a lot of cheap sweet things (especially sodas), people can quickly and cheaply feed their addiction.

The social issue behind this is probably at least as complicated as the biochemistry of sugar metabolism.

But, what I am pretty certain about is that if HFCS was more expensive, we'd see less of it on the market and sweets like sodas would be more expensive than they are currently. The higher cost would result in people buying less of the stuff, and consuming less of it and that could only serve to help with the epidemics of obesity, diabetes, and other associated problems.

It won't solve problems due to lack of exercise and it won't cure a lack of self-control. But it's a step in the right direction.

Awhile ago I sought to cut HFCS from my diet. Primarily that meant dropping sodas, but I also looked at food labels and bought items that didn't have added HFCS. I expanded on that to include all sugars. So I have an order of preference: When I buy a processed food item, I will first search for an item that doesn't have added sugars of any type. If I can't find that, then I will choose an item that uses a sugar product other than HFCS because of my disdain for the corn subsidy.

Certainly ending the corn subsidy would have ripple effects down the line. I think primarily it'd be seen with meat costs since feedlots use a lot of commodity feed corn. I don't think that would necessarily be a bad thing because people tend to eat more meat than is necessary, anyway. We'd see increases in corn-based plastic costs, ethanol, all sorts of misc processed foods, and probably other things, too.


----------



## jtmartino (Jul 31, 2008)

beanbag said:


> Rodin's article was listed within a group of other articles that showed that fructose either made you less hungry, or at least not more hungry than other sweet drinks. They rebut Lustig's point that fructose makes you more hungry than a diet coke. The satiety point is that sweet drinks make you more hungry, and is not unique to fructose. Longer term relating to leptin, I would say that there are enough other factors that tweak your leptin levels that I'm not ready to blame fructose on that.


I'm not trying to be offensive, but this comment is why it's difficult to debate anything of merit with people online. You are totally missing the whole point of me comparing Rodin to the more current study, yet again. The fact that you keep going back to fructose when I made a point about artificial sweeteners means you're not reading what I'm writing.

Ok, step away from fructose for a second. Rodin claims aspartame doesn't cause a satiety response. Modern research says it does. Why are you believing what Rodin said 20 years ago over modern research? If Rodin is wrong about this point, who's to say she's not wrong about fructose too? Aragon bases a large part of his argument upon what Rodin's findings showed, and it looks like her science is pretty flawed. The point of these comments is to question the apparently flawed science behind Rodin's studies, and how it could affect the results regarding fructose.



beanbag said:


> Does fructose cause leptin resistance or diabetes at high-ish concentrations? I dunno, maybe it does and maybe it doesn't. Is it based on rats that were fed inhuman amounts of pure fructose? The article you link is at least intellectually honest with a bunch of qualifiers and a list near the end with a few facts that don't seem to support their hypothesis. I see the new enemy is uric acid now.


You should know that most scientific research yielding results interpreted as harmful to humans is conducted in unrealistic conditions. It's much easier to conduct a short-term study under unrealistic conditions than a long-term study under real-world conditions. A lot of people who haven't worked in a research setting don't really understand this unavoidable fact, and it's based on limited resources.

But either way, there's a lot of good information in this thread. Hopefully people can take what is written (or linked) here and do their own research and provide their own conclusions. I think we can all agree that in normal amounts, fructose is not a serious problem. And obese people with Type 2 diabetes should focus on reducing their caloric intake overall, rather than focus on fructose alone. There are likely greater underlying dietary problems than the presence of fructose in the 8 doughnuts they are eating in one sitting.


----------



## sandmangts (Feb 16, 2004)

rob_co2 said:


> I still don't get why the bleached products like white sugar and white flour are cheaper and more popular than the lesser refined product- which has more taste, more nutrition, and should theoretically cost less to produce.
> 
> QUOTE]
> Actually the production costs are minimal when you do it in huge quantities. The key here is preservation. White sugar can stay on a shelf for months as can bleached flour. It is virtually impossible to get an unprocessed product to market before it goes bad. Shipping a fresh product is a logistical nightmare with higher risk of loss. Thats why fresh veggies cost more than canned.
> ...


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

jtmartino said:


> You should know that most scientific research yielding results interpreted as harmful to humans is conducted in unrealistic conditions. It's much easier to conduct a short-term study under unrealistic conditions than a long-term study under real-world conditions. A lot of people who haven't worked in a research setting don't really understand this unavoidable fact, and it's based on limited resources.


True, but its also true that rat models often fail to be applicable to humans and results from rat studies often times can not be duplicated in humans. Rat studies are interesting, for what its worth.

To me, much of the negatives claimed about fructose can be claimed about sugar in general. I don't think it matters at all if your soda or desert is sweetened with pure cane sugar or HFCS. Either way you are getting about half fructose and metabolizing it the same way. 
The comparison of fructose to glucose is interesting, but show me anything sweetened with pure glucose. It seems that there are differences between glucose and fructose metabolism, but it is pretty much academic. If you want carbs from only glucose then the solution would be to eat starch, not sugar, so we are back to avoiding sugar, rather than demonizing fructose. 
HFCS has mainly replaced sucrose, not glucose in our diets, so the comparison should really be sucrose to HFCS, not glucose to HFCS. And does in matter? I doubt it. Logically, they are both about half fructose. Secondly, the Princeton study doesn't seem to hold up under scrutiny. Also this study finds no difference:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17234503.

If you want to say that sugar and HFCS should both be avoided because of fructose, I might believe it, but if you want to say that sugar is ok, HFCS is not, I don't think I'm buying that.


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

From the Journal of Nutrition 2009

On balance, the case for fructose being less satiating than glucose or HFCS being less satiating than sucrose is not compelling.

Fructose and Satiety


----------



## beanbag (Nov 20, 2005)

jtmartino said:


> Ok, step away from fructose for a second. Rodin claims aspartame doesn't cause a satiety response. Modern research says it does. Why are you believing what Rodin said 20 years ago over modern research? If Rodin is wrong about this point, who's to say she's not wrong about fructose too? Aragon bases a large part of his argument upon what Rodin's findings showed, and it looks like her science is pretty flawed. The point of these comments is to question the apparently flawed science behind Rodin's studies, and how it could affect the results regarding fructose.


Aragon's case does not fall apart if Rodin said something wrong about Aspartame 20 years ago.



> But either way, there's a lot of good information in this thread. Hopefully people can take what is written (or linked) here and do their own research and provide their own conclusions. I think we can all agree that in normal amounts, fructose is not a serious problem. And obese people with Type 2 diabetes should focus on reducing their caloric intake overall, rather than focus on fructose alone. There are likely greater underlying dietary problems than the presence of fructose in the 8 doughnuts they are eating in one sitting.


I'm going to backtrack on what I said and even though I am not convinced that fructose is a bad actor, it is probably a good idea to pretend that it is anyway. If you try to eliminate it from your diet, you accidentally end up doing a host of other things that are good for you anyway, like reducing simple sugar intake, reducing insulin spikes, increasing micronutrient intake via vegetables, reducing overall caloric intake via satiety / food reward issues, etc.

So yes, fructose is a toxin. But fruit is ok.


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

Thinking about this topic some more, and have some points to ponder and perhaps open up some more discussion:

If the fructose is bad and glucose is good theory is true, then a bowl of potatos would be better than a bowl of strawberrys or other fruit. Right? I think if you compare bodies of fruit eaters to potato eaters, you will find the fruit eaters to have less of the metabolic syndrome characteristics?

Glycemic index has been left out of this conversation. A diet low in glycemic index has been shown to improve insulin resistance.

Fructose has a low glycemic index but has been shown to aggravate insulin resistance. (paradoxical? This is due to its effect on lipid synthesis?)

Fat intake also effects insulin resistance, and substituting unsaturated fats for saturated has a beneficial effect.

Good article about diet and insulin resistance:
Dietary Approaches to Prevent the Metabolic Syndrome

I have no real conclusions to draw from all this, but it seems to me that diet and metabolism is a complex topic, and trying to make simple rules about what is good and what is bad often falls short. 
Glucose has been touted as the good player in this discussion so far, but glucose in the diet (and high glycemic foods) cause a very strong insulin response, and, high blood glucose levels over time, from that type of diet, can lead to metabolic syndrome and other health problems. 
It's starting to look to me that calling fructose bad isn't such a useful guideline. The more old fashioned sensible approaches to diet seem to be more practical: Eat a high fiber, low sugar, low saturated fat diet.


----------



## beanbag (Nov 20, 2005)

This guy thinks potatoes are fine:
Whole Health Source: Potato Diet Interpretation

The author of the blog eats a few potatoes a day.
He is also not convinced that spiking your insulin is bad.

Also: Whole Health Source: Saturated Fat and Insulin Sensitivity

This is the most intellectually honest health blog that I have read.


----------



## electrik (Oct 22, 2009)

beanbag said:


> This guy thinks potatoes are fine:
> Whole Health Source: Potato Diet Interpretation
> 
> The author of the blog eats a few potatoes a day.
> ...


Another interesting fact is that potatoes as a food offer one of the highest satiety ratings


----------



## Rotaphobic (Feb 11, 2007)

Ever have an "aha" moment. One of those moments hit me several years ago when I was reading labels for various brands of barbecue sauce. About one half of the brands I looked at were predominantly made of HFCS, and the other half of the brands were made of nothing but spices of various sorts. I don't know anything about making barbecue sauce, but it became quite plain while reading the labels that you could buy a product that had lots of calories, and no ingredients except HFCS and chemicals that I could not pronounce used as flavoring and to extend shelf life, or you could buy a product with fewer calories and nothing but plain old fashioned spices. 

I made a personal discovery that day about how the nature of many products has changed over the years. That was a lesson in miniature about why I, along with millions of others, bought and ate excessive amounts of HFCS. HFCS may or may not be healthy in what the ADA likes to call a balanced diet. But when virtually every packaged food product category available in the store comes in a version with HFCS as a major ingredient, it is easy to see how a diet could contain what anyone would agree is more HFCS than ideal.

I for one will be glad when corn subsidies no longer distort the ingredient choices of either the businesses that produce our food or the consumers who purchase them. 

I am also flat out amazed at how difficult it has been to get my family to even consider reading labels and give preference to food items that are made in the conventional way. I have come to the conclusion that it will probably take as many decades to stop consuming excessive amounts of HFCS as it took for us to get to the point where we are now. Manufacturers are beginning to improve their products, but until the market distortions caused by subsidies go away it is going to be a tough slog.


----------



## Team Fubar Rider (Sep 3, 2003)

Rotaphobic said:


> Ever have an "aha" moment. One of those moments hit me several years ago when I was reading labels for various brands of barbecue sauce. About one half of the brands I looked at were predominantly made of HFCS, and the other half of the brands were made of nothing but spices of various sorts. I don't know anything about making barbecue sauce, but it became quite plain while reading the labels that you could buy a product that had lots of calories, and no ingredients except HFCS and chemicals that I could not pronounce used as flavoring and to extend shelf life, or you could buy a product with fewer calories and nothing but plain old fashioned spices.


It is damn near impossible to find ANY BBQ sauce without HFCS, or really anything for that matter.

I have a HUGE problem with the way the market works with the subsidies for corn and corn based products, making products like HFCS and Ethanol (which is a different story) artificially cheap so manufacturers can use these ingredients in place of other ingredients to pad their profits on the TAX PAYERS dime. Add to the mix the giant GMO monster Monsanto screwing corn up even further (genetically modifying corn so it is resistant to having Round-Up sprayed on it, but it kills EVERYTHING else in the field can't be a good thing, if for no other reason than those persistent pesticides left on the corn) and we have a big issue.

I am not trying to turn this into a political/environmentally ethical argument, but there is a reason why HFCS is in almost everything. It has been made unbelievably cheap and with the GMO stuff, it is "easy" for anyone to grow hi-yield crops.

We (the American public) have vilified corn in recent years which is unfair. Nothing beats a fresh picked ear of corn grilled on a summer evening. But as with everything, moderation is the key. And with HFCS in so many items, I think of ranchers (which are abundant here in western SD). What do ranchers _finish_ their livestock with to fatten them up before they go to market? Corn. Enough said.

I guess take a page from our ancestors and eat as close to the earth as possible, eat little to no processed foods and we don't have a problem anymore.


----------

