Paul from Facebook asks:
What are your thoughts on fructose? Is it really as bad as Paleo is making it out to be?
Dr. Robert Lustig has worked hard in recent years to demonize fructose, and his efforts have paid off. His YouTube video “Sugar: The Bitter Truth” has over 2.5 million views as of this writing. Lustig et al. claim that fructose is a uniquely fattening poison (when compared to glucose) that is as toxic to the liver as alcohol.
But is this true? Does the current evidence support this position? I’ve changed my views on this over time as I’ve become better acquainted with the literature, so I’d like to share my current understanding with you.
When it comes to fructose, calories matter
There’s no doubt that refined sugar – including fructose – can be problematic. But studies suggest that this is only true when calories are in excess.
This may be the most dangerous aspect of refined sugar: it leads to unintentional overeating. In a recent post on fructose, obesity researcher Stephan Guyenet points out that most people in these studies aren’t deliberately overfeeding. They are inadvertently overfeeding because they aren’t spontaneously compensating for the calories added to the diet via a large fructose- or glucose-sweetened beverage.
This doesn’t happen with fruit or other whole foods that contain glucose or fructose.
When people add a soda or two a day to their diet, they tend not to reduce consumption of other foods, and thus their calorie intake increases.
This is where fructose does appear to be more harmful than glucose. Although people don’t compensate for calories added via glucose or fructose, the fructose-sweetened beverages have more serious metabolic effects.
Is fructose uniquely fattening?
Dr. Lustig argues that, when compared to glucose, fructose is uniquely fattening. He claims that fructose is the most efficient substrate for de novo lipogenesis (DNL), which is the process by which the liver converts carbohydrates to fat.
However, Dr. Lustig relies on animal evidence that doesn’t apply to humans. There’s a big difference between mouse carbohydrate metabolism and human carbohydrate metabolism. When mice are on a high-carbohydrate diet that doesn’t provide excess calories, it’s common to see DNL rates of 50 percent and up. In other words, they are efficient at converting carbohydrates into fat, even when they’re not overeating. (1)
But in humans on an isocaloric diet (without excess calories), de novo lipogenesis falls into the range of 10 to 20 percent. The conversion of carbohydrate is less efficient in humans than it is in mice.
The research in this area is robust and uncontroversial. Nearly 50 controlled feeding studies have been performed on various aspects of cardiometabolic control. Most investigators working in this field believe that DNL in humans is negligible in response to fructose, and doesn’t comprise a significant source of dietary calories.
There’s another problem with extrapolating the animal evidence to humans in this case. The mice in the studies Lustig cites are eating huge amounts of fructose: up to 60 percent of total calories. You’d have to drink more than four 44 ounce Super Big Gulps a day to get that much fructose. Ain’t gonna happen.
According to researcher Dr. Sievenpiper in an interview with science writer David Despain at Evolving Health, the 50th percentile intake for people in the U.S. is 49 grams per day, which works out to 10 percent of total calories. Even the 95th percentile intake of 87 grams per day doesn’t exceed 20 percent of calories. That’s a lot of fructose, but it’s nowhere near the 60 percent of calories fed to mice.
Like what you’re reading? Get my free newsletter, recipes, eBooks, product recommendations, and more!
Is fructose an evil toxin?
Dr. Lustig refers to fructose is a “poison” that is nearly as toxic to the liver as alcohol. But again, human evidence doesn’t support this claim.
In a recent paper, Dr. Luc Tappy and colleagues labeled acetate, fructose and different metabolites with stable isotope tracers so they could see how fructose is metabolized in the human body. (2) They found that 50 percent ends up as glucose, 25 percent goes to lactate and greater than 15 percent goes to glycogen. The remainder is oxidized directly (to CO2 through the TCA cycle) and a small portion – as low as 2-3% – is converted to fat via de novo lipogenesis.
Glucose and glycogen are easily processed by the body, and 2-3% conversion to fat is not significant. And while some have claimed that lactate may be problematic, a paper published more than a decade ago contradicts this. (Hat tip to Evelyn from CarbSane.) According to the authors:
The bulk of the evidence suggests that lactate is an important intermediary in numerous metabolic processes, a particularly mobile fuel for aerobic metabolism, and perhaps a mediator of redox state among various compartments both within and between cells… Lactate can no longer be considered the usual suspect for metabolic ‘crimes’, but is instead a central player in cellular, regional and whole body metabolism.
Translation: lactate from fructose isn’t a problem.
What does this mean for you and fructose?
Fructose-sweetened beverages like soft drinks and juice cause metabolic problems when calories are in excess, and studies have shown that people are not likely to compensate for the additional calories they get from such beverages.
I don’t think there’s any basis for avoiding whole fruit simply because it contains fructose. As I’ve shown in this article, there’s nothing uniquely fattening or toxic about fructose when it isn’t consumed in excess. And since whole fruit contains fiber and other nutrients, it’s difficult to eat a lot of fruit without simultaneously reducing intake of other foods.
Fruit has been part of the human diet for longer than we’ve been, er, human. We’re well-adapted to eating it, and capable of processing the fructose it contains. (Unless you are FODMAP intolerant – but that’s a different issue entirely.)
Better supplementation. Fewer supplements.
Close the nutrient gap to feel and perform your best.
A daily stack of supplements designed to meet your most critical needs.
Sugar is not the problem. I have been sick and have had many health issues. Since i follow RAY PEAT and eat up to 600g of sugar ( mostly fruit ). I have gained muscle mass 15kg and lost my body fat. How can sugar be a bad guy? I have tried every single diet out there and nothing helped. He is genious and im eternely grateful to him!
Hello Chris,
I like to eat bananas. I sometimes eat two a day. Is this bad because of sugar content?
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/96/4/727.abstract
Effect of short-term carbohydrate overfeeding and long-term weight loss on liver fat in overweight humans
Conclusions: Carbohydrate overfeeding for 3 wk induced a >10-fold greater relative change in liver fat (27%) than in body weight (2%). The increase in liver fat was proportional to that in DNL. Weight loss restores liver fat to normal. These data indicate that the human fatty liver avidly accumulates fat during carbohydrate overfeeding and support a role for DNL in the pathogenesis of NAFLD.
Hi Chris,
this was really interesting, thanks. I would love to know though – what are your views on the consumption of fruit in very large quantities (like in the case of those following the 80 10 10 diet which relies on the consumption of a very large amount of fruit – 80 percent of daily caloric intake)?
thanks,
Sarah
I think the most dangerous aspect of fructose is its ability to create a hostile online environment within nutritional discussion boards 🙂
I think the most dangerous aspect of fructose is its ability to create a hostile online evironment on nutritional discussion boards 🙂
Antinutrients are “compounds that inhibit the normal uptake or utilization of nutrients” (http://www.expertglossary.com/science/definition/antinutrient) rather than foods low in nutrients, and antinutrients are highest in grains and other seeds, nuts and vegetables. I know of no prominent LC proponent who claims that fruits or honey are high enough in phytic acid or other antinutrients to be a significant problem, so rather than go off further on that tangent, I’ll try to bring the discussion back to the crux issue of this blog post (analysis of the hypothesis that fructose is a uniquely fattening poison and that fructose or sugars are the key dietary cause of obesity without additional cofactors like flavorings and other brain-reward stimulating elements) with some questions. Wouldn’t the foods that *cause* obesity to begin with be likely a worse problem than the foods that only contribute to obesity after it has set in, and isn’t it possible that once the foods that cause obesity are removed, that the foods that only contribute after obesity has set in might eventually become less of a problem? Shouldn’t we be focusing first on the foods that actually cause obesity and ill health?
If we focus on “carbs” or “sugars” or “fructose” as the issue, then that leads to people eating stuff that tends to get advertised and promoted at LC sites like those of Jimmy Moore (I give him some credit for becoming less positive about Splenda and more so about food quality), Johnny Bowden, and others–such as LC cereal, Carbquik Baking Mix, Atkins low-carb “snack” and “dessert” bars, Atkins LC penne pasta, etc. None of these foods are found in traditional societies. They cannot explain the relative absence of obesity in those societies, nor among the excessively skinny datorade-drinking, juice-feasting, fruit-gorging fruitarians and 811ers (some of whom were previously overweight or obese), nor the fat-loss success of Seth Robert’s sugar-water appetite-reduction technique, nor have these new LC foods been tested for long. They effectively make guinea pigs of the dieters that rely on them.
The carbs/sugars focus also leads to fear of traditional foods like raw honey, whole fruits, and roots and tubers and to people criticizing those who dare to eat them or speak positively about them. Yet none of these traditional foods has been connected to obesity. There seems to be more at play here than the reductionist hypotheses regarding “carbs,” “sugars,” or “fructose” by themselves.
Even if fructose were uniquely fattening, if you limit yourself to traditional foods and don’t gorge on honey, fruit juice or dried fruit every day, it’s difficult to consume a lot of fructose or other sugars, and they aren’t in the heated, refined, filtered and concentrated forms used in the studies that filter out or destroy most of the nutrients and cofactors found in wild and heritage fruits and honeys. As Dr. Lindeberg pointed out, a daily fructose intake equivalent “to 4-5 kg of pineapples” is widely considered safe. Not many people aside from fruitarians and 811ers eat that much fruit. So traditional foods are a win-win—they avoid both modern foods and the massive intakes of processed fructose in the mouse studies.
If someone has evidence that fructose is uniquely fattening in an isocaloric state, or that links whole fruits or raw honey to obesity, please share it. You’re not likely to convince Chris or many others with opinions and assumptions.
I am in agreement. I have become very interested in Ray Peat and his work. I have been eating in that fashion for a while now and am thriving. I eat a lot of fruit and freshly squeeze orange juice etc.
I genuinely believe the paleo template and ray peat can live in harmony.
I think that fibre in large amounts is a well-established antinutrient.
In order to get lots of energy from fruit you would have to consume enough fibre to speed it through.
This is why our ancestors a few hundred years ago didn’t trust fruit and often suffered from scurvy when it was available.
Hahaha!!! Where did you read this nonsense? What about ripe oranges?
Can we stop with the bias?
Fibre of vegetables and “unripe” fruits (is a well-established antinutrient.)
Those on ships had scurvy and the europeans living in artic regions had scurvy.
The problem isn’t natural fructose. The problem is organophosphates(pesticides) that corporations spray on fruits and organophosphates that plants absorb then tranfer inside the fruit which leads to Demyelinating disease.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demyelinating_disease
George Henderson wrote: “I think that fibre in large amounts is a well-established antinutrient.”
Kudos–overstated, but now I suspect that you’re starting to get somewhere. I researched that in the past while trying to figure out why fruits were more of a problem for me than 99% of people. While fiber is not regarded as a true antinutrient, some believe that it can have antinutrient-like effects in large amounts (Suite101: Antinutritional Factors: Phytate and Oxalate in Vegetarian Diets | Suite101.com, http://suite101.com/article/antinutritional-factors-phytate-and-oxalate-in-vegetarian-diets-a304396#ixzz27fO75W8b), though the data is mixed and may depend on the contribution of additional factors (such as true antinutrients, gut dysbiosis, insulin resistance, and perhaps other unknown factors) in combination with the effect of fiber. In one study, the juices of fruits and vegetables were found to increase all measured levels of minerals, whereas the fiber in whole fruits and vegetables caused small reductions in zinc and copper (Effect of fiber from fruits and vegetables on metabolic responses of human subjects, II. Calcium, magnesium, iron, and silicon balances, http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/32/11/2307.full.pdf). So, despite “common knowledge” about sugars being the ultimate poisons, it was fiber that was linked to mineral deficiencies, rather than “sugars.”
My understanding is that grains, legumes and whole vegetables contain far more fiber than fruits and honey. If fiber is the key issue, then fruits and honey are not the main bogeymen.
Over thinking it and trying to find studies to fit your view point isn’t going to convince anyone.
The article you pointed out is full of bias. Healthy humans have oxalate degrading bacteria in the colon to degrade oxalate from RAW leafy greens.
The majority of fruits in stores are picked before they have gotten a chance to ripen. Orange is a fruit that ripens on the tree. Unripe fruit: High in fiber, oxalates, phytates, etc.. Why? The fruit needs to defend itself from incompetent humans.
Insulin resistance is caused by excess salt intake and has nothing to do with diabetes even though its found in diabetics. Correlation isn’t causation.
” So, despite “common knowledge” about sugars being the ultimate poisons, it was fiber that was linked to mineral deficiencies, rather than “sugars.” ”
Phytates have an affinity for heavy metals. Not minerals.
Mineral deficiencies are the result of not eating them in the first place and the epidemic of Vitamin D deficiency. Vitamin D is needed for the absorption of all minerals.
Grains, legumes and vegetables contain far more damaging molecules than fiber.
More thinking and presenting of evidence and less biased assumptions would be more convincing on your part. You didn’t even bother to present evidence, so there’s no need to refute anything.
Think realistically and forget your domesticated ways. Where would you get 2 liters of water per day without the tap?
You are forgetting that fruit digests a lot quicker than a piece of meat. Its easy to eat and digest a lot of fruit in a short amount of time.
I’d get it from the river, or the spring at the back of my house. There’s even this thing called rain sometimes.
fruit digests quicker than meat? I’ll bet 1,000 calories of fruit doesn’t digest as quickly (or quietly) as 1,000 calories of meat.
A lot of fruit is not a lot of nutrition, unless it’s coconut or avocado etc.
Living in low-carb land.
Its not possible to ingest the required amount of water per day from outside sources without contracting a bacterial infection. There is a reason why water is disinfected.
Carbs digest instantly while fats require bile. 1,000 calories of meat requires a good 8 hours while 7,000+ calories of fruit digest in the same amount of time. The only reason why fruit ferments is because you eat it after eating meat. It basically sits there on top of the meat to rot.
“A lot of fruit is not a lot of nutrition, unless it’s coconut or avocado etc.”
False again. Fruit may be low in protein and fats but its high in vitamins and minerals. Where would you get 4.7g of potassium without fruit or leafy greens?
Take into account that no primate on this planet eats only one type of food. Fruit is meant to be part of a healthy balanced diet.
I wonder how or why 2 litres of water made their way into this discussion. Marzo, you say
“Its not possible to ingest the required amount of water per day from outside sources without contracting a bacterial infection.”
But elsewhere you say
“Our immune system produces its own antimicrobial peptides to kill off excess microorganisms. Vitamin D, singing and exercise have been found to increase and stimulate their release. Vitamin A has been found to keep their levels high. So.. inactivity and a vitamin D deficiency is the ultimate cause of all those problems.”
If you are in a survival situation your concern is with energy and protein – this is what I mean by nutrition. (See how far potassium and vitamin C get you when you are starving). Whatever whole food you eat, whether meat of vege, will supply micronutrients, but micronutrients were not what australopithecus was looking for. Meat is a rather good source of potassium BTW, along with ash from cooking fires which was used as seasoning.
I’m not opposed to eating fruit. But humans can and do get by without it, of necessity, without suffering any consequences as long as they have fresh, whole food of other origin.
There is as much ascorbate and potassium in potatoes as in fruit, with more energy, and there is enough in fresh meat to support health.
Man, by the way, is the only animal that needs to drink enough water to urinate and sweat copiously. Our requirement for water is quite unusual and hard to explain in evolutionary terms.
P.S., Marzo, are you saying that you have actually digested 7,000+ calories from fruit?
Was that for the Guinness Book of World Records?
Is it on YouTube?
“7,000+ calories from fruit?
Was that for the Guinness Book of World Records?”
Nope, Durianrider reports that he has eaten more (Friday Q&A: is 70 Bananas a Day too Much? #448, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56qwAxpAMD), which I don’t recommend (Paul Nison talks about the downside of excessive fruit intake in that video and points out that TC Fry and other heavy fruit eaters had suboptimal health). While he fibs on a lot of things, I believe him on that, given his obsession with fruit.
TC Fry ate a poor diet all his life, was inactive and Vitamin D deficient because of his inactivity. Paul Nison is the same way. His eye bags tell us that he has adrenal fatigue from the lack of Vitamin D.
What I do believe is that eating only fruit is bad. No mammal on the planet eats one type of fruit, plant or animal. What I do know from experience is that there is a big difference between eating only fruit(alkaline) and leafy greens(neutral), and eating fruit, leafy greens and nuts(acidic, growth) in no particular ratio. Its about the acid/alkaline balance.
DR is a twig that eats too many bananas. Bananas are too high in pesticides, norepinephrine, too low in Vitamin A and Omega 6’s. Norepinephrine in an inactive individual and the lack of Vitamin A/Omega 6’s promotes muscle loss. I avoid bananas and eat a lot of leafy greens for the Vitamin A, minerals and best protein source.
I’ve easily eaten more than 7000+ calories of ripe cantaloupe in one summer day. Then fasted as only natural in nature.
Everything is bad for the human body when someone is domesticated.
Once a person is active regularly and is accustomed to intermittent fasting. Its all about eating unlimited quantities when hungry and fasting naturally.
Ripe fruit is all water with very little fiber.
Contaminated water can contain intestinal parasites.
We aren’t in a survival situation and we have technology(tool) to feed outselves the best food. Meat is a great source of compacted nutrients. So.. What drives brain evolution? What specific molecule? I already know but lets hear it.
I don’t mind if people eat meat. Just liberate the animals before the whole planet turns into a desert. When the animals are liberated, no pesticides are needed, the chickens eat the insects and the cow dung enriches the soil.
“There is as much ascorbate and potassium in potatoes as in fruit, with more energy, and there is enough in fresh meat to support health.”
Its so easy to get solanine poisoning from eating potatoes. Solanine is a neurotoxin.
“Man, by the way, is the only animal that needs to drink enough water to urinate and sweat copiously.”
Enough water to keep the brain hydrated and the excessive sweating only happens in those that eat animal flesh. I don’t need deodorant.
Antinutrient diet in the sense that the diet in general is not rich in nutrients (energy or micronutrient) and is high in antinutrients; most fruits are poor sources of energy for volume consumed; those that are not, such as dates or sultanas, probably are potentially fattening. Fruits may also be antinutrient if excessive consumption causes rapid elimination.
I always defer to the likes of Richard Mackarness, Bary Groves, and John Yudkin, who were into high-fat diets for weight loss before Dr Atkins. They all included some fruit. Same with most of the old diets in Gary Taubes’s books.
Fruit consuming cultures of Afghanistan, Pakistan and India did see obesity and diabetes among the rich who ate the most fruit. Grapes and dates and melons might be prime culprits, but I think whole citrus might be benign, as citrus flavonoids like naringen activate PPAR-alpha, the same gene that low-carb dieting and calorie restriction activate. I presume this is where the grapefruit diet comes in.
The truth is that insulin inhibits lipolysis. Fruit inhibits the body from using the fats from the meat as fuel. In reality, the fault is not of the fruit but simply the result of our domestication. If we lived out in nature, we wouldn’t have meat and fruits in abundance easily available to us around the corner.
Interesting, marzo, do you have any references on that I could read? That might help explain why heavy eaters of fruit tend toward emaciation rather than obesity (as many LCers claim for some unknown reason).
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/120913104121.htm
(evidence of how fructose is harmful, though not that it is fattening)
It probably doesn’t take much DNL to make a fatty liver. And the DNL rate on a very low-fat diet must be high just to sustain life. There are a lot of variables, between diets, races, body types, and I don’t think any one study can capture the range of possible responses, or serve it up as a mean value without distortion.
As kids we ate tons of sugar and obesity was then very rare. Linoleic acid (not prominent back then) may be the toxin that primes adipocytes to expand. We’re also talking about specific genetic combinations and epigenetic triggers – not everyone who eats the same food gets fat, not everyone who smokes 60 a day gets lung cancer.
As for the raw vegans, their diet is basically antinutrient and I would not expect them to fatten. Fruit is not a great source of calories unless you dry it or extract the juice.
But if you’ve become sensitive to carbohydrate for some reason, then fruit needs to be counted as carbs.
The link of the article you posted is very bias.
All those problems are the cause of obesity. People eat too much because they are deficient in a lot of vitamins and minerals, especially magnesium. Plus obese people have hyperlipidemia(high blood fat) which will always skew the research.
The omega 6 ratio theory doesn’t apply when eating whole foods such as nuts. The linoleic acid research only applies when a person eats high omega 6 “oils” since they lack vitamins and minerals.
Omega 6 reactions in the body:
delta 6 desaturate(enzyme) + Linoleic acid + Vitamin C, B3, B6, magnesium, zinc = DGLA -> leads to the production of anti-inflammatory eicosanoids and inhibits the production of AA.
“In humans, the activity of D6D(delta 6 desaturate) declines with age and in various diseases including arthritis, diabetes, hypertension, eczema, and psoriasis. In addition to this, lifestyle factors such as stress; smoking; excessive consumption of alcohol, of linoleic acid, and of saturated and transfatty acids; as well as nutritional deficiencies of vitamin B6, zinc, and magnesium inhibit D6D.”
Source: http://www.shikai.com/publications/GLA-A%20Natural%20AntiInflammatoryAgent.pdf
delta 5 desaturate + Linoleic acid – Vitamins and minerals = AA -> leads to the production of inflammatory eicosanoids.
Nuts contain vitamins and minerals. Oils don’t.
Fruit, especially ripe and organic, without organophosphates(pesticides), is extremely healthy and a great source of calories, organic water, vitamins and minerals. Fruit is a poor source of fat to insulate cell membranes but thats where nuts come in. Also, don’t confuse raw vegans with fruitarians/811rs. Raw vegans aren’t fat phobic.
Remember that nature has always had it right. Corporations gotta stop manipulating foods and selling us toxic products. Above all, people gotta stop making excuses for the crappy food they put in their mouth.
High Fat Hep C Diet wrote: “(evidence of how fructose is harmful, though not that it is fattening) … As for the raw vegans, their diet is basically antinutrient and I would not expect them to fatten. Fruit is not a great source of calories unless you dry it or extract the juice.”
So you agree with Chris’ point in this blog post that fructose and whole fruits are not uniquely fattening for most people, yes? BTW, fruits are not especially high in antinutrients, but emaciation is nonetheless more of a problem among fruitarians and 811ers than obesity. Some traditional cultures have special fattening diets and I’ve yet to come across one that includes fruit as a staple.
By most people, you mean those that are not obese, then yea I agree. Like Chris states in the blog, its about excessive intake. In my opinion, Chris should of just wrote that obese people suffer from a mental disorder and over eat, that’s the truth.
Fruit is not antinutrient unless its unripe(high in phytic acid) and hybrid, which most fruits are in the supermarkets.Tropical fruits from the tropics contain twice the amount of protein, vitamins and minerals. Fruit can be fattening if someone is able to eat 7+ kilos of fruit per day to get enough sugars for fatty acid synthesis and enough vitamin D to handle those amounts of sugars but fruit is way too low in omega 6’s which will lead to mental retardation if only eating fruit.
We agree that there isn’t anything wrong with fruit. Its just sad that all these low carbers blame foods for their excessive eating habits.
Um, no. Flat out, no. This is not a calorie issue – fructose in itself (yes, even in fruit) is processed in a potentially harmful way to the body, on a a cellular level, one cell at a time, regardless of how much is eaten or what else is eaten. Dr. Lustig’s research, advanced education in chemistry and awareness of how animal studies can be transferred (or not) to humans is profound – it is ridiculous to suggest that he would take research and lab studies that couldn’t be accurately applied to humans and state that “FRUCTOSE IS POISON” based on a flimsy, faulty premise. Are you serious here? I’m not certain what an L.Ac degree is, Accupuncture? Really? Please folks, go listen or RE-listen to Dr. Lustig (that’s Dr. Robert Lustig, Professor of Pediatrics in the Division of Endocrinology at the University of California, San Francisco) – basic one hour presentation before breathing a sigh of relief and turning again to fructose, even in moderation. Fiber makes it o.k. to consume fructose in very limited quantities, much like a bungee chord makes it o.k. to jump off a cliff, but it doesn’t make fructose any less toxic. Period. Fructose is a toxin, just like ethanol.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/05/02/is-sugar-toxic.aspx
I suffered mild brain damage for a week from eating a small quantity of HFCS from jam. HFCS IS NOT NATURAL FRUCTOSE. GET IT THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULLS. HFCS is synthetic, toxic and I bet the human body doesn’t know what to do with it.
I can eat kilos of ripe fruit without any problems. The science is wrong, do the tests on raw vegans. We have the cleanest bodies, inside and out.
Did you even read the article, and the cited studies? I was a speaker at the Ancestral Health Symposium along with Dr. Lustig and several others; in the Q&A of Dr. Stephan Guyenet’s talk, Dr. Lustig said that he has never suggested people avoid moderate fructose consumption from whole foods like fruit.
I’d be curious to hear how you account for Dr. Sivenpiper’s findings, if fructose is so toxic? Most people here aren’t swayed by ad hominem attacks and appeals to authority. They’re swayed by evidence.
Chris Kresser wrote: “Most people here aren’t swayed by ad hominem attacks and appeals to authority. They’re swayed by evidence.”
Here, here. I’m one of those people. And most people don’t buy jars of pure fructose at the supermarket, healthfood store or farmer’s market or pick gobs of fructose, conveniently heated and refined, off of fructose trees. As Marzo suggested, HFCS is not the same thing as raw fruits/berries (or raw honey).
Missy Ruth: “go listen or RE-listen to Dr. Lustig”
Instead of commanding us to watch the entire lengthy video again, why not provide some counter-evidence to the evidence that Chris, I and others provided on this very web page that you’re commenting on? Here are still more studies that support what Chris wrote:
Hellerstein MK. De novo lipogenesis in humans: metabolic and regulatory aspects. Eur J Clin Nutr. 1999 Apr;53 Suppl 1:S53-65. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10365981. “Only when CHO energy intake exceeds TEE [total energy expenditure] does DNL in liver or adipose tissue contribute significantly to the whole-body energy economy. It is concluded that DNL is not the pathway of first resort for added dietary CHO, in humans.”
Acheson KJ, Schutz Y, Bessard T, Anantharaman K, Flatt JP, Jequier E. Glycogen storage capacity and de novo lipogenesis during massive carbohydrate overfeeding in man. Am J Clin Nutr. 1988 Aug;48(2):240-7. Free full text at http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/48/2/240.long.
“Glycogen storage capacity in man is approximately 15 g/kg body weight and can accommodate a [stored glycogen] gain of approximately 500 g before net lipid synthesis contributes to increasing body fat mass.”
If fiber is the only thing that keeps small amounts of fructose-containing fruit from being poisonous toxins, then why do numerous studies show benefits from fiber-free honey consumption, as well as topical use, why did a study find real honey superior to “sham honey” (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22063889), and why after adding small amounts of raw fermented honey to my diet did my fasting and postprandial blood sugar levels improve, my lifelong dandruff mostly clear up, my hair become softer and less oily, and a dental carie I have that a dentist and hygienist were urging me to get filled improve on its own (the hygienist was surprised, to say the least) despite the added sugar? And why do my blood sugar, dandruff and hair all worsen again if I go too long without the RFH? I limit my intake, yes, but the notion that only fiber keeps fructose-containing foods from being pure poisons is an unproven assumption.
Marzo wrote: “I can eat kilos of ripe fruit without any problems.”
While I don’t think that raw vegan diets are optimally healthy and have seen countless reports from raw vegans of dental problems, B-12 deficiencies, coldness, and so on, I have noticed that Internet images of raw vegans–particularly those that eat lots of fruit–appear the thinnest, generally, of all dieters. If fructose and fruit are especially fattening, why should this be? Emaciation seems to be a bigger risk with fruit intake than obesity. Doubters can check the images at various dietary forums themselves. There’s no apparent obesity epidemic among raw vegans.
” and why after adding small amounts of raw fermented honey to my diet did my fasting and postprandial blood sugar levels improve, my lifelong dandruff mostly clear up, my hair become softer and less oily, and a dental carie I have that a dentist and hygienist were urging me to get filled improve on its own (the hygienist was surprised, to say the least) despite the added sugar? And why do my blood sugar, dandruff and hair all worsen again if I go too long without the RFH? I limit my intake, yes, but the notion that only fiber keeps fructose-containing foods from being pure poisons is an unproven assumption.”
Honey contains a lot of antimicrobial peptides which kills of fungus on the scalp and microorganisms in the GI tract. Also, you most likely went the paleo route and ate liver to repair your caries. Liver contains vitamin A,D,K.
Our immune system produces its own antimicrobial peptides to kill off excess microorganisms. Vitamin D, singing and exercise have been found to increase and stimulate their release. Vitamin A has been found to keep their levels high. So.. inactivity and a vitamin D deficiency is the ultimate cause of all those problems. Plus halitosis, bad breath.
“While I don’t think that raw vegan diets are optimally healthy and have seen countless reports from raw vegans of dental problems, B-12 deficiencies, coldness, and so on, I have noticed that Internet images of raw vegans–particularly those that eat lots of fruit–appear the thinnest, generally, of all dieters. If fructose and fruit are especially fattening, why should this be? Emaciation seems to be a bigger risk with fruit intake than obesity. Doubters can check the images at various dietary forums themselves. There’s no apparent obesity epidemic among raw vegans.”
Proper raw vegan diets by healthy long term raw vegans are extremely healthy. Karen knowler, Tonya kay and Nathane jackson come to mind.
Those skinny vegans aren’t exactly what I call real raw vegans. I call them the fruitarian/811rs fat phobics. Raw vegans eat lots of nuts(to insulate cell membranes and for neurogenesis), fruits and leafy greens.
Dental problems along with halitosis(bad breath) are the cause of an overgrowth of harmful bacteria in the mouth which is directly the cause of low antimicrobial peptides in saliva. Like I stated above, vitamin D deficiency and inactivity will cause low levels of antimicrobial peptides.
Vitamin B12 deficiencies happen because people don’t know how humans co-produce vitamin B12 with bacteria. I do infact and not planning to release the information any time soon. We are definitely not meat eaters unless we need it to survive and we don’t need meat for brain evolution.
One’s mental state and his/her mindframe may be even more important than the diet they make. Everyone chooses and adheres to a diet depending on them. Also the motivation to add a photo can be influenced by many factors, so I do not think the fruitarians, 811’ers, and whatever diet followers seem physically healthier is a clear indication to how good the diet is.
Hi jasmin,
Thank you so much for your kind reply. I will check out Natvia. So many paleo recipes call for agave or raw honey. But as you mentioned there iare problems associated with those.
I have used Stevia, and I agree. There is a fine line of where it tastes ok and then not so much. Bitter, chemical aftertaste.
Is there a safe sweetner to be used for baking? Stevia, raw honey, maple syrup, xylotil, erythritol? Anything?
Hi Fara 🙂
I’m a baker, cake decorator and sugar addict so I’ve been experimenting with sugar substitutes when I bake to determine what works best.
If you want something low in fructose then honey and agave are no good. They might be healthier than highly processed, refined white sugar but they are just as bad in terms of fructose. (PS raw honey isn’t raw anymore if you bake with it 😉 )
For baking things like cakes, cupcakes and cookies I replace half of the sugar in the recipe with a product called Natvia which is an Australian product made from stevia and erythritol and measures out in the same way as sugar. Eg one cup of sugar usually equals one cup of Natvia. It looks almost identical to white sugar and tastes very similiar but has a very slightly bitter aftertaste.
I have tried using Natvia to replace all of the sugar in recipes but the slight aftertaste was noticeable despite all the other components in the recipe, and to a baker and sugar addict such as myself it was unstisfying, so I stick to replacing only half of the sugar in a recipe.
I have also used Natvia in things like my own vegan ice cream and hot chocolate/coffee and it works very well, but with baking it does alter the final product because it doesn’t taste quite the same and also chemically it is not the same.
I’ve tried boiling Natvia to see if it would caramelise the same way sugar does, and it definitely does not 🙂 I don’t recommend trying it lol 🙂
I’ve bought liquid stevia but haven’t cooked with it yet. But from what I’ve heard and read it’s a good alternative in terms of taste, no fructose, and calories.
Hope this helps 🙂
It would be very interesting to see how various metabolic diseases correlate with a history of “sweet tooth” (this would be better with behavioural observations, but self-reporting may be very accurate here).
Would it be more present in those who developed normal-weight metabolic syndrome than those who became metabolically-healthy obese? That would be my prediction.
George D. wrote: “This is less common with fresh fruit and strong-flavoured honeys, more common with dried fruit and refined honeys.”
Right on George D.! In other words, not all carby or sugary foods are the same. There are “good carbs” as well as “bad carbs.” Surprisingly, raw fermented honey seems to be one of my better tolerated “carbs”–more so than “safe starches.” It has been fascinating to learn that there are many millions of years of history of consuming raw fermented honeys and nectars in our evolutionary tree.
George D. wrote: “Would it be more present in those who developed normal-weight metabolic syndrome than those who became metabolically-healthy obese? That would be my prediction.”
I’m thin, rather than obese, and I’ve never been diagnosed with any sort of metabolic syndrome because my fasting blood sugar measurements in physician’s offices were always excellent and my random blood draws were OK (though one reading was somewhat high due to having eaten some candy not long before the blood draw 🙂 which the nurse oddly said shouldn’t normally be a problem–don’t ask me why). Nonetheless, I seem to be far more sensitive to many easily-digested carby foods than most folks (producing zinc, potassium and maybe other deficiencies and symptoms thereof when certain carby foods are consumed beyond a limited level). I suspect that many people go undiagnosed on some health issues because fasting and random blood glucose tests are limited in effectiveness. Post-prandial BG (after eating most or every staple food) and mineral level tests seem to be better measures, but they require frequent home monitoring, which few people are willing to do, and which provides no income to physicians.
I am HIGHLY sensitive to “sugars” (I believe that modern “sugars” contributed to my history of dental caries, periodontal disease, mineral deficiencies, acne, brain fog, etc.), yet I’ve found some “sugars” I seem to handle reasonably well and even derive health benefits from. I used to think that I would probably have to forever forego nearly all “carbs” and “sugars” until I found some that I seem to handle relatively well (though if they ever give me more problems than benefits, I’ll drop them). Keeping an open mind and being willing to experiment with many different foods paid off well for me (so far). YMMV
More total sugars, but I think only ketogenic dieters could avoid 7.5g fructose daily.
What would fructose do to non-dietary sugar in the blood?
Can it be causing mild hypoglycaemia in those sensitive to its effects, which drives higher-carb feeding and overeating?
I don’t see a problem with sugars in people who are not sensitive to their effects; either glucose-intolerant through metabolic syndrome/DM2, or fructose-sensitive; (except of course as “empty calories”)
I would define fructose-sensitive as, resolved to eat only one, but cannot stop after one; the “sweet tooth” if there are in fact any teeth left.
This is less common with fresh fruit and strong-flavoured honeys, more common with dried fruit and refined honeys.
When people do not have a sweet tooth, I’d consider it unlikely that fructose played a special role in any diabesity pathology.
An interesting side-light on the “Empty Calorie” hypothesis:
http://healthcorrelator.blogspot.co.nz/2012/07/lowest-mortality-bmi-what-is-role-of.html
In the studies it was 7.5 g fructose + 75 g glucose = 83.5 g total sugars, which is more than a lot of VLCers eat and wouldn’t consider as restricting severely, and it doesn’t even include starches. Plus, it may be that higher intakes of sugars are OK for some people.
Well, they’re saying you don’t need more than 7.5g (or 10% of glucose) to get this catalyctic effect.
And it’s a dose that’s hard to avoid without restricting diet severely.
But it doesn’t mean that more is harmful. Unless it’s HFCS, in which case all bets are off, because it’s not even a real food. And this is probably more important than we know at present; c.f. honey vs. sugar.
If honey contains traces of antioxidants and “dirt” that assist its metabolism, are there corn-derived and other contaminants in HFCS that do the opposite? And does the more inert, less contaminated by processing, nature of cane sugar (but not so sure about beet) put it in the middle?
If I’m reading the studies correctly, the 7.5g catalytic dose was just fructose and it was taken after consuming 75 g of glucose, and the only finding was that the addition of the fructose improved glycemic response to the glucose without other negative effects, not that 7.5 g fructose is necessarily the maximum safe consumption of fructose at a meal, so some people might be able to safely eat more. Did I miss something else?
Let’s not forget that “safe starch” type roots and tubers (except oca) are sources of fructose and sucrose.
This would surely approach the 10% or 7.5g “catalyctic” dose in meals that include significant carbs from beet, carrot, onion or sweet potato.
See tables “food sources” below: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fructose