Fructose leads to Metabolic Syndrome and is basically toxic

Options
WeCallThemDayWalkers
WeCallThemDayWalkers Posts: 259 Member
in Food and Nutrition
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

If you have ever wondered how fructose affects your metabolism this video is a MUST SEE. The arguments against high-sugar diets are illustrated clearly and although the video is long, it is so mind-blowing...you won't even notice how long it is.

The video explains how your biochemistry works.

Some main questions that are answered:

1. How is fructose treated differently by your body compared to glucose? How about compared to ethanol?

2. How does the consumption of sugar lead to increased fat storage in your body?

3. How does sugar consumption lead to Metabolic Syndrome, Type II Diabetes, etc.?

4. Why are obesity rates skyrocketing among infants?

5. Why does the "calories-in less than calories-out" paradigm not really hold water?

6. Why do Mediterranean diets (high fat, low sugar) not lead to Metabolic Syndrome? Why do Eastern diets (i.e. high carb, low fat) not lead to Metabolic Syndrome? In contrast, the American diet does.

Really, really suggest that you watch this. Even if you have to watch it in snippets. It will seriously make you more knowledgeable about your own physiology and biochemistry.
«134

Replies

  • MaynardLD50
    MaynardLD50 Posts: 36 Member
    Options
    I was going to completely blast you for posting "Fructose" thinking you were advocating against fruit while dieting, which is completely wrong and absurd, but agree with you on Glucose (sugar).

    Sugar is bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad.

    Fruit? Not bad.
  • WeCallThemDayWalkers
    WeCallThemDayWalkers Posts: 259 Member
    Options
    point being that our diets are filled with sugar, most of it (and the sneakiest of it) being in the form of fructose which is hidden away in the form of corn syrup, which is further stashed away in almost everything sold in a box.

    Glucose is NOT bad. Glucose is the main fuel of life.
    Fructose and Sucrose are equally bad (when it comes to your diet) as they both contain (or are) fructose.

    table sugar = sucrose
    sucrose = glucose + fructose
    fructose = fructose

    Fructose does not raise insulin levels before transport into the liver, which leads to no increase in leptin levels, which = your brain not realizing you've been fed.
    Glucose on the other hand, does result in your brain knowing it's been fed.

    Of course, most natural fructose comes packaged in the form of fruit, which contains fiber, which reduces the amount of absorption time available to the body and leads to fewer calories absorbed.

    Table sugar contains both fructose and glucose. The fructose component of the molecule is treated separately from the glucose molecule.

    It's all very interesting because X calories consumed of glucose does NOT equate to the same amount of fat storage as the same number of calories of fructose!

    Seriously...this is really cool and very important. Watch it. It's definitely not as simple as Sugar = Bad. It's so much more intriguing than that. It's more like Sugar (fructose component) = almost direct translation by lipogenesis (creation of fat). Glucose goes almost completely into glycogen storage to fuel cells.
  • wackyfunster
    wackyfunster Posts: 944 Member
    Options
    I was going to completely blast you for posting "Fructose" thinking you were advocating against fruit while dieting, which is completely wrong and absurd, but agree with you on Glucose (sugar).

    Sugar is bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad.

    Fruit? Not bad.
    You have to eat a TON of fruit to get a dangerous amount of fructose. e.g. apples, which are a high-fructose fruit, have ~6g of fructose per 100g. So to get 40g of fructose, you'd need to eat roughly 700g/1.5 pounds of apples. To get 40g of fructose via sugar, you need ~100g. HFCS can be as low as ~70g.

    So yes, fructose is bad, yes, in theory if you eat a TON of high fructose fruits, that is bad. That is fairly difficult to do.

    Considering that HFCS is the first or second ingredient in probably 30% of the stuff in the grocery store, you could accidentally exceed a safe fructose intake in a light meal.
  • xraychick77
    xraychick77 Posts: 1,775 Member
    Options
    lol

    sugar isnt bad..sugar just has empty calories..thats why people get fat..too many calories. and sugar does NOT cause diabetes.
  • WeCallThemDayWalkers
    WeCallThemDayWalkers Posts: 259 Member
    Options
    Actually...it does! The metabolism of sugar by the liver does in fact cause the conditions of Metabolic Syndrome, the precursor to Type II Diabetes.

    Also, fructose does not get synthesized into glycogen the way that glucose does (and is not useful as an energy source. If you ate only fructose and no glucose you would die because only liver cells can metabolize fructose. It is not useful to your heart, brain, etc.), and instead comes out the tail end of the metabolic cycle in the form of LDL (otherwise known as bad cholesterol). Also, fructose breakdown produces uric acid (an excess of which causes Gout). Glucose metabolism results in far less LDL and no uric acid.

    This **** is so fascinating.
  • amysj303
    amysj303 Posts: 5,086 Member
    Options
    Bump
  • firesoforion
    firesoforion Posts: 1,017 Member
    Options
    Very, very interesting.
  • rutkowsm
    rutkowsm Posts: 43 Member
    Options
    Watching now!
  • WeCallThemDayWalkers
    WeCallThemDayWalkers Posts: 259 Member
    Options
    If you don't have time for the video, here's a NY Times article that hits the highlights and the controversy.

    Pretty good stuff.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17Sugar-t.html?pagewanted=all

    a snippet:

    "The phrase Lustig uses when he describes this concept is “isocaloric but not isometabolic.” This means we can eat 100 calories of glucose (from a potato or bread or other starch) or 100 calories of sugar (half glucose and half fructose), and they will be metabolized differently and have a different effect on the body. The calories are the same, but the metabolic consequences are quite different.

    The fructose component of sugar and H.F.C.S. is metabolized primarily by the liver, while the glucose from sugar and starches is metabolized by every cell in the body. Consuming sugar (fructose and glucose) means more work for the liver than if you consumed the same number of calories of starch (glucose). And if you take that sugar in liquid form — soda or fruit juices — the fructose and glucose will hit the liver more quickly than if you consume them, say, in an apple (or several apples, to get what researchers would call the equivalent dose of sugar). The speed with which the liver has to do its work will also affect how it metabolizes the fructose and glucose."
  • luvmybaby333
    luvmybaby333 Posts: 241
    Options
    Saving to check out later...
  • WeCallThemDayWalkers
    WeCallThemDayWalkers Posts: 259 Member
    Options
    Now I'm wondering how to get my sugar under control. I <3 fruits so I'm often wayyyy over on sugar for the day. Eek.

    Anyone have a good grams/day of sugar that you try to stick to?
  • wackyfunster
    wackyfunster Posts: 944 Member
    Options
    Now I'm wondering how to get my sugar under control. I <3 fruits so I'm often wayyyy over on sugar for the day. Eek.

    Anyone have a good grams/day of sugar that you try to stick to?
    Personally, I generally shoot for ~60g/day max, but it depends on the sources. If I am eating junky stuff with processed sugar, I will aim for ~40g/day. I also don't eat anything with corn syrup or HFCS in it in any significant quantities. Sugars from fruits are generally a lot less of a concern because they occur with large quantities of fiber and water which slows metabolization.

    As far as what is safe for you, there are a number of factors. Basically, in 1978, average fructose intake was <20g/day, and the ratio of sucrose:high-fructose sweeteners was something like 10:1. It is now 1:1, and fructose intake is up ~400%, depending on what segment of the population you look at. This increase corresponds to the rise in obesity, type II diabetes, and other fun metabolic issues. So we know that if you're <20g/day of fructose you are probably ok. Based upon what I've read on fructose metabolization, the average person can handle around 40g/day without ill effect on the liver (GI issues start to show up around 25g/day, depending on source... i.e. fruits will generally be safer due to fiber content, but 25g of fructose via soda will start to cause GI problems in some people). If you are e.g. a cyclist or marathoner, then your fructose intake can be even higher while racing.

    Good study with lots of historical info: http://jn.nutrition.org/content/139/6/1228S.long
  • Acg67
    Acg67 Posts: 12,142 Member
    Options
    Links to a Lustig video, then a Taubes article?

    LOLRUS.gif

    http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/

    http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/02/19/a-retrospective-of-the-fructose-alarmism-debate/
  • tigersword
    tigersword Posts: 8,059 Member
    Options
    Fructose most certainly does spike insulin, so I'm going to go ahead and discount all the other alarmist stuff, as well. Also, fructose can and certainly is, converted by the body into glycogen by the liver, same as glucose.

    Fructose is not evil. Sugar is not evil. Artificial sweeteners are not evil. Saturated fat is not evil. Dairy is not evil. No food is evil. Food is food.
  • WhitneyAnnabelle
    WhitneyAnnabelle Posts: 724 Member
    Options
    I try to be low fructose, but I'm also a vegan who eats very few 'processed' foods, so limiting myself even more doesn't make the most sense to me.
  • hottottie11
    hottottie11 Posts: 907 Member
    Options
    Fructose most certainly does spike insulin, so I'm going to go ahead and discount all the other alarmist stuff, as well. Also, fructose can and certainly is, converted by the body into glycogen by the liver, same as glucose.

    Fructose is not evil. Sugar is not evil. Artificial sweeteners are not evil. Saturated fat is not evil. Dairy is not evil. No food is evil. Food is food.

    Yes...we are pretty anti sugar today aren't we? O well...off to my two scoops of ice cream that fits well into my calories and macros...I hope they don't kill me in my sleep tonight
  • WeCallThemDayWalkers
    WeCallThemDayWalkers Posts: 259 Member
    Options
    Links to a Lustig video, then a Taubes article?

    LOLRUS.gif

    http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/

    http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/02/19/a-retrospective-of-the-fructose-alarmism-debate/

    I think the LOLRUS was a little bit uncalled for... I mean, I'm genuinely interested in this topic. You don't need to make fun of me for it.

    I read the first article you attached. I understand the points made, but not sure that trusting the USDA statistics is very smart in this case (who makes that food pyramid, anyways?). Also, I've read that Lustig is not a militant anti-carber. He asserts that there is TOO MUCH sugar in our diets. Hard to argue with that fact. It's also difficult to argue with the biochemistry he presents. Of course dose matters, as with everything else. The main point is that the breakdown of fructose results in the production of LDL and the storage of fatty droplets in the liver. These two things are precursors to weight-gain and ultimately metabolic syndromes.

    I'm not trying to be alarmist. I'm trying to become educated on the details!
  • vjrose
    vjrose Posts: 809 Member
    Options
    Pretty funny how many people though that will go SEE that's why I don't eat fruit *headdesk*
  • YummyTpn
    YummyTpn Posts: 339 Member
    Options
    Thank you for this, I am going to watch it and hope that it answers some questions for me...
    I started making lifestyle changes on Dec. 1/11 and so far, am only 7lbs down. I eat right, exercise about 4x/week, drink enough water, sleep well...I just don't understand why the weight isn't moving faster. I have lost weight in the past, and it's NEVER been so slow, EVER.
  • YummyTpn
    YummyTpn Posts: 339 Member
    Options
    Thank you for this, I am going to watch it and hope that it answers some questions for me...
    I started making lifestyle changes on Dec. 1/11 and so far, am only 7lbs down. I eat right, exercise about 4x/week, drink enough water, sleep well...I just don't understand why the weight isn't moving faster. I have lost weight in the past, and it's NEVER been so slow, EVER.
    However, I have wondered if sugar is the culprit. While I do limit the amout of sugar I get (outside of fruit) I still go over on my sugar almost everyday. Starting this week, I'm going to try cutting out all sugar (save for fruit) and see what happens. While I don't go over by much, I still go over and am wondering if it's holding me back. I do eat more sugar now than in the past, due to a medication I'm on that makes me crave sweets. Before this medication, I rarely ate sweets and never craved them.
    Thanks again!

    PS: Sorry for the double post, that was an accident!

Categories