We knew it, but proof... Fructose vs Glucose

[gecko2424]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/he...tml?ref=health

those participants consuming fructose beverages had significantly increased blood levels of triglycerides and L.D.L., compared to those consuming drinks sweetened with glucose.

[rhizome]

"25 percent of their energy requirements"

80-90 grams + of fructose.

As Alan would say, Ir. Fawking. Relevant for most here.

[Blindead]

Their diets weren't controlled for 8 weeks. What a dumb study. Did they do anything to make up for this?

[titdoctor]

Fructose makes ME fat/bloated. I'll stick to vegetables.

[Dr. Horse]

I haven't read the paper yet, but I find it interesting/odd that they seem to be picking on HFCS, and yet they compare PURE fructose to PURE glucose (and a LOT of each). It seems that HFCS is replacing SUCROSE in many products, not GLUCOSE- so why do this study at all? What conclusions can we make?

[reefpicker]

I like how headlines are so misleading.

From that same article:

Originally Posted by NYT ARTICLE

Although there was a similar moderate weight gain in both groups, the fructose drinkers also had larger increases in fat inside the abdomen, also associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease.

The study was intended only to learn more about the metabolic impacts of glucose and fructose consumption, the authors noted, not the health effects of high-fructose corn syrup, which is a mixture of fructose and glucose. Table sugar also contains both glucose and fructose, as do many fruits and some vegetables.

Dr. Peter J. Havel, the senior author and a nutrition professor at the University of California, Davis, said that the findings ?do not imply that anyone should avoid fruit, which contains only small amounts of fructose and has other important nutritional benefits.?

John S. White, a biochemist who has published widely on nutritive sweeteners and was not involved in this study, said that [b]the experimental setup did not reproduce a real-life diet. The study did not test high-fructose corn syrup, he said, and judgments should not be made about it from the findings.[b]

[gecko2424]

Originally Posted by Mr. Horse

I haven't read the paper yet, but I find it interesting/odd that they seem to be picking on HFCS, and yet they compare PURE fructose to PURE glucose (and a LOT of each). It seems that HFCS is replacing SUCROSE in many products, not GLUCOSE- so why do this study at all? What conclusions can we make?

i see your brightness quotient hasn't increased over time...

The study was intended only to learn more about the metabolic impacts of glucose and fructose consumption, the authors noted, not the health effects of high-fructose corn syrup, which is a mixture of fructose and glucose

[getgot211]

awesomely worthless.

[Holyspokes]

hmmm I don't think I'll be drinking 250g of pure fructose any time soon. The only purely fructose sweetened drinks I can think of contain around 4g per bottle...

[gecko2424]

What to take away from this:
If fructose has a greater impact on cardiovascular risk factors than glucose.


This only shows that a diet with a higher proportion of fructose leads to a greater risk of cardiovascular disease, relative to a diet with a higher consumption of glucose.

That's all.

[gecko2424]

Originally Posted by Holyspokes

hmmm I don't think I'll be drinking 250g of pure fructose any time soon. The only purely fructose sweetened drinks I can think of contain around 4g per bottle...

you consume 4000 calories/day?

[Scott~]

There are so many variables to consider in the development of disease.... this study sucks ass. Studies like this are a prime example of throwing **** out there that only confuses an ignorant population.

[Scott~]

Originally Posted by gecko2424

you consume 4000 calories/day?

4,000 calories makes Spokes angry. That's like breakfast - lunch.

[gecko2424]

Average american consumes 1.56 cans of carbonated beverage/day.

Since 45% are obese, it would be fair to assume those aren't all diet.

That's 60g+ frucose/day from soda alone. Make any connections you wish...

Inclusive of all its brands...Coke sells 50 billion servings/day...somone is drinking more than 60g/day

[gecko2424]

Originally Posted by Scott~

There are so many variables to consider in the development of disease.... this study sucks ass. Studies like this are a prime example of throwing **** out there that only confuses an ignorant population.

Let's see - obesity problem in America

I propose it's due to overconsumption of calories, mostly simple carbs + inactivity.

What other forces are at play?


Should we take into account frequency of bowel movements?

And no, this isn't the study, this is an article about the study. Read the study itself before you dismiss it.

[Holyspokes]

Originally Posted by gecko2424

you consume 4000 calories/day?

Depends on the day. On a training day.. well over.

Originally Posted by gecko2424

Average american consumes 1.56 cans of carbonated beverage/day.

Since 45% are obese, it would be fair to assume those aren't all diet.

That's 60g+ frucose/day from soda alone. Make any connections you wish...

Inclusive of all its brands...Coke sells 50 billion servings/day...somone is drinking more than 60g/day

Isn't 1 can around 45g of HFCS? That means around 20 something grams of fructose.. which would only be around 40g of fructose with 1.56cans. That isn't nearly comparable to what the study is saying. And I don't see how your "what to take away from this" can be drawn from the study.

I'm not trying to argue that fructose is fine in unlimited amounts or anything.... just that I don't really see this as too useful of information.

Also I don't really think we know enough about the synergistic effects of all the things in fruits and such that we can draw conclusions like "once you eat this much fruit, it is bad because of the fructose content". Using an artificial fructose drink is just plain silly... unless people actually consume that much straight fructose in that form.

[IEatPowerRacks]

Originally Posted by Holyspokes

Depends on the day. On a training day.. well over.



Isn't 1 can around 45g of HFCS? That means around 20 something grams of fructose.. which would only be around 40g of fructose with 1.56cans. That isn't nearly comparable to what the study is saying. And I don't see how your "what to take away from this" can be drawn from the study.

I'm not trying to argue that fructose is fine in unlimited amounts or anything.... just that I don't really see this as too useful of information.

Also I don't really think we know enough about the synergistic effects of all the things in fruits and such that we can draw conclusions like "once you eat this much fruit, it is bad because of the fructose content". Using an artificial fructose drink is just plain silly... unless people actually consume that much straight fructose in that form.

Yup, not only that, but

John S. White, a biochemist who has published widely on nutritive sweeteners and was not involved in this study, said that [b]the experimental setup did not reproduce a real-life diet. The study did not test high-fructose corn syrup, he said, and judgments should not be made about it from the findings.[b]

[Murder]

just use ur common sense ppl it aint hard to figure out

[alan aragon]

Originally Posted by rhizome

"25 percent of their energy requirements"

80-90 grams + of fructose.

As Alan would say, Ir. Fawking. Relevant for most here.

Exactly the point.

However, the intake of fructose was actually 25% of roughly 2400 calories, which is 600 kcals, which = 150 g. In order to consume 150 g fructose from nondiet sodas, you'd have to drink 7 cans per day.

[reefpicker]

I think some of you (and maybe the journalist that wrote the article too) are trying to put too much on these findings.

This people just wanted to see what the difference is in the metabolism of glucose vs. fructose.

They only seem to have one relevant finding (however, I cant say if its only one as I didnt see the original paper), and that is that fructose increased abdominal fat deposition over glucose.

Notice however that this individuals were NOT in a caloric deficit, as implied by the fact that they ALL gained weight. Thus, this study does not even show what happens if you consume fructose on a caloric deficit or a maintenance diet.

Its not irrelevant by itself. It is an interesting finding. But it has nothing that can be "directly" applied to a diet plan. Nothing.

[Dr. Horse]

Originally Posted by gecko2424

i see your brightness quotient hasn't increased over time...

My point stands.

Originally Posted by gecko2424

Average american consumes 1.56 cans of carbonated beverage/day.

That's 60g+ frucose/day from soda alone.

Interesting math. I see your brightness quotient hasn't increased either.

[gecko2424]

Actual study:
http://www.jci.org/articles/view/37385

The amount of sugar consumed by the subjects in this study, 25% of energy requirements, is considerably higher than 15.8%, the current estimate for the mean intake of added sugars by Americans (58). However, recent reports (59–63) suggest that the sugar intake from beverages alone approaches or exceeds 15% of energy in adolescents and adults up to 40 years of age. The large SDs in several of these reports suggest that at least 16% of the studied populations was consuming over 25% of daily energy requirements from sugar-sweetened beverages (59, 62, 63).

[reefpicker]

Originally Posted by gecko2424

Actual study:
http://www.jci.org/articles/view/37385

The amount of sugar consumed by the subjects in this study, 25% of energy requirements, is considerably higher than 15.8%, the current estimate for the mean intake of added sugars by Americans (58). However, recent reports (59?63) suggest that the sugar intake from beverages alone approaches or exceeds 15% of energy in adolescents and adults up to 40 years of age. The large SDs in several of these reports suggest that at least 16% of the studied populations was consuming over 25% of daily energy requirements from sugar-sweetened beverages (59, 62, 63).

I wonder if they meant standard error and not standard deviation. In any case, you can't obtain that information from SD alone (or SE). Depending on sample size, any number of individuals with an elevated consumption, can skew the results. Not sure how they get that 16%.

Another problem is the sources of sugars, as well as the amount per meal. The average person probably spaces out the consumption of beverages throught out the day. You might ingest a cup of coffee with sugar in the morning, a pepsi in the afternoon, bread (which also adds sugar), dessert (more sugar), then a juice in the afternoon (more sugar), etc. Note also that most americans consume sweet breakfast things such as waffles, pancakes, donuts, bagels, corn flakes, etc.

Since protein, carbohydrate, and fat, can contribute to insulin and adiposity signals, which can attenuate the negative effects of fructose consumption, it would be hard to expand this findings to a wider population, even if these assumptions (that you boldfaced above) were met.

[machx]

this might sound stupid but....

if corn syrup = fructose and corn syrup is bad...

and if fruit = fructose

then does that mean fruit = bad???

[Blindead]

Originally Posted by machx

this might sound stupid but....

if corn syrup = fructose and corn syrup is bad...

and if fruit = fructose

then does that mean fruit = bad???

No. Not at all. And it's not like fruit is 100% fructose either.

Sugars23.9g
Sucrose3125mg
Glucose6523mg
Fructose14210mg

that's an apple.

[alan aragon]

Originally Posted by gecko2424

Actual study:
http://www.jci.org/articles/view/37385

The amount of sugar consumed by the subjects in this study, 25% of energy requirements, is considerably higher than 15.8%, the current estimate for the mean intake of added sugars by Americans (58). However, recent reports (59?63) suggest that the sugar intake from beverages alone approaches or exceeds 15% of energy in adolescents and adults up to 40 years of age. The large SDs in several of these reports suggest that at least 16% of the studied populations was consuming over 25% of daily energy requirements from sugar-sweetened beverages (59, 62, 63).

And your point is...?

Even @ 15.8% added sugar in the average diet (as indicated by your quote), that's 7.9% fructose. This is FAR less than the 25% fructose diet imposed in the study. Also, the bolded part of your quote indicates that roughly 84% of the general population does NOT consume the level of fructose imposed in this study, so again, what point are you trying to make? Let me know what you're not understanding here, broski.

[Scott~]

Originally Posted by gecko2424

Let's see - obesity problem in America

I propose it's due to overconsumption of calories, mostly simple carbs + inactivity.

Why do you assume it's simple carbs? Inactivity goes without saying, or at least not active enough to curb fat gain. The only fair thing to say is that calorie consumption increased, macro nutrients be damned.

What other forces are at play?

In the development of disease? Jesus.... environmental factors, genetic predisposition, stress, smoking, excessive alcohol consumption, and of course the aforementioned lack of sufficient activity.

Should we take into account frequency of bowel movements?

Actually, yes. Bowel frequency issues can be a sign of many conditions. A doctor isn't going to brush off reading "patient has not taken a dump in 24 days".

And no, this isn't the study, this is an article about the study. Read the study itself before you dismiss it.

I did read the study. I dismiss it.

[Blindead]

This thread makes me think of all the older people who ask me for advice. What can I eat, do this, take this, blah blah blah. They either want to be healthier or lose fat. Yet none of them realize that the easiest and best thing to do is get off their asses.

[Dr. Horse]

Originally Posted by alan aragon

And your point is...?

Even @ 15.8% added sugar in the average diet (as indicated by your quote), that's 7.9% fructose. This is FAR less than the 25% fructose diet imposed in the study. Also, the bolded part of your quote indicates that roughly 84% of the general population does NOT consume the level of fructose imposed in this study, so again, what point are you trying to make? Let me know what you're not understanding here, broski.

Hey AA- how do I go about getting a username change?

[Jay Rawd]

Originally Posted by Mr. Horse

Hey AA- how do I go about getting a username change?

Same here.