Fructose - fat, pancreatic cancer, insulin

About specific vitamines, minerals or fiber, for example
User avatar
Aytundra
Posts: 1707
Joined: Sun 26 Feb 2012 18:33
Contact:

Re: Fructose

Postby Aytundra » Sun 15 Feb 2015 19:17

RRM wrote:
Aytundra wrote:What about this:
...Kavanagh et al...
...
An essential difference is that the Hfr diet contains 17 energy% fat and the control diet 13 energy% fat. (i am surprised that they did that)
...
When I drew your attention to the fat area of this study (i think you deleted one of my post),
The idea is actually not about noticing the fat percentage was different or if the study noted down differences in fat energy percentages.

JeffC originally linked this article when we were on the AGE/ALE discussion, and then when I first read it, at first glace it looked like fructose looked bad.


Actually this article has a fundamental flaw in their study design.
They did not hold every variable constant*, while testing for the effects of fructose.
Hence, I cannot believe that they can draw a valid conclusion that fructose is bad.
Because, they did not hold every variable constant, they could have said that differences in fat sources in the diet caused liver problems too,
hence they cannot put a blame on fructose, nor can they blame the fats unless they do another study.
So imo now, this study is almost worthless in its ability to condemn fructose.

The major flaw is in the details of Table 1.
They allowed lots of variations in fat "types" ingested between the Controls and Test subjects.
Table 1 of [url=http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early/2013/06/19/ajcn.112.057331.full.pdf+html]Kavanagh et al[/url] wrote:
Controls, Test Subject
Caloric density (kcal/g) 3.19 3.37
Carbohydrate (percentage of energy) 69 69
Fructose (percentage of energy) ,0.5 24
Carbohydrate sources Grain starches, plant fiber Wheat flour, fructose
Protein (percentage of energy) 18 14
Protein sources Whey, grain, and fish meals Casein, lactalbumin, and wheat flour
Fat (percentage of energy) 13 17
Dietary fat sources Pork fat Vegetable oils, butter
MUFA (percentage of fatty acids) 33 35
SFA (percentage of fatty acids) 30 34
PUFA (percentage of fatty acids) 37 30
Dietary fiber (percentage of diet) 4.5 3.8
Cholesterol (ppm) 75 67
A tundra where will we be without trees? Thannnks!
User avatar
RRM
Administrator
Posts: 8152
Joined: Sat 16 Jul 2005 00:01
Contact:

Re: Fructose

Postby RRM » Mon 16 Feb 2015 19:36

Aytundra wrote:The idea is actually not about noticing the fat percentage was different ...
...
Actually this article has a fundamental flaw...
They did not hold every variable constant*
Ehrrr, that was my whole point.
I pointed at the difference in fat% for that purpose; as a variable that was not held constant.
Or do you think it (the difference in fat%) does not qualify? (as a variable not held constant)
User avatar
Aytundra
Posts: 1707
Joined: Sun 26 Feb 2012 18:33
Contact:

Re: Fructose - fat, pancreatic cancer, insulin

Postby Aytundra » Wed 25 Feb 2015 03:34

Here let me explain what I see:
I see:
Table 1 of [url=http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early/2013/06/19/ajcn.112.057331.full.pdf+html]Kavanagh et al[/url] wrote:
Controls, Test Subject
Caloric density (kcal/g) 3.19 3.37
Carbohydrate (percentage of energy) 69 69
Fructose (percentage of energy) ,0.5 24
Carbohydrate sources A)Grain starches, plant fiber a)Wheat flour, fructose = Grain starches, plant fiber, no wheat flour, no fructose| No Grain starches, no plant fiber, Wheat flour, fructose
Protein (percentage of energy) 18 14
Protein sources B)Whey, grain, and fish meals b) Casein, lactalbumin, and wheat flour = Whey, grain, and fish meals, no casein, no lactalbumin, and no wheat flour | No Whey, no grain, and no fish meals, Casein, lactalbumin, and wheat flour.
Fat (percentage of energy) 13 17
Dietary fat sources C)Pork fat c)Vegetable oils, butter = Pork fat, no Vegetable oils, no butter | no pork fat, vegetable oils, butter
MUFA (percentage of fatty acids) D)33 d) 35
SFA (percentage of fatty acids) E)30 e) 34
PUFA (percentage of fatty acids) F)37 f) 30
Dietary fiber (percentage of diet) 4.5 3.8
Cholesterol (ppm) G)75 g)67
So see how messed up their study design is!
Percentages were just the bottom of the ice berg.

If a wai dieter was forced to participate in such a study and eat what these primates ate, and only allowed to choose from the foods listed, Which items would you choose?
You can switch between upper case and lower case letters but you must select a letter. You can exclude an item but explain why you will leave it out.
A tundra where will we be without trees? Thannnks!
User avatar
RRM
Administrator
Posts: 8152
Joined: Sat 16 Jul 2005 00:01
Contact:

Re: Fructose - fat, pancreatic cancer, insulin

Postby RRM » Thu 26 Feb 2015 18:28

Yes, messed up, indeed.
Luckily i do not have to choose between these options...
(m not really a "what if" kind of guy)
Novidez
Posts: 377
Joined: Thu 25 Feb 2016 23:34

Fructose

Postby Novidez » Mon 23 May 2016 19:51

I talked with a doctor and when I said I was continuing doing this, she started to ask me a bunch of questions.
Basically, she started citing some biochemistry knowledge and there, of course, I am complete ignorant. I can say that she 'won'.
So, what she did to me was to make me feel really frightened. For example, I showed the blood tests and about the erythrocytes she said that these were years of living I was losing.
Hearing all this, of course, it only aggravates my concern.

Sugar, sugar, sugar. All about the sugar. Seriously :(
Kasper
Posts: 898
Joined: Sat 24 Apr 2010 12:48
Location: Utrecht; The Netherlands

Re: calcium in oranges and fiber

Postby Kasper » Mon 23 May 2016 23:19

I think there are valid points against sugar and fructose if you are on a really unhealthy diet and nutritional deficient diet, fructose can be harsh for the liver. Maybe sometimes like in the case of panacea where you have real addictions, using a low sugar and fat rich diet can be also beneficial. But as it comes to just: do you get your carbs from starches or from fruit/honey. I dont see why starches would be so much better and fruit highly toxic.
Novidez
Posts: 377
Joined: Thu 25 Feb 2016 23:34

Re: calcium in oranges and fiber

Postby Novidez » Tue 24 May 2016 00:12

Kasper wrote:I think there are valid points against sugar and fructose if you are on a really unhealthy diet and nutritional deficient diet, fructose can be harsh for the liver. Maybe sometimes like in the case of panacea where you have real addictions, using a low sugar and fat rich diet can be also beneficial. But as it comes to just: do you get your carbs from starches or from fruit/honey. I dont see why starches would be so much better and fruit highly toxic.
But why then so much people are against fructose or sugar? I still don't get it, that's the thing. Which one is right: the minority (sugar is fine) or the majority (sugar is harmul)?
Maybe it is because of this?
"Endogenous glycations occur mainly in the bloodstream to a small proportion of the absorbed simple sugars: glucose, fructose, and galactose. It appears that fructose and galactose have approximately ten times the glycation activity of glucose"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glycation

I dunno...
But I mean, I am not a scientist, neither you are. We read articles on the internet trying to learn more, but what are the articles from the internet? Are they really a reliable source?
Maybe I feel this more than you because I am really amateur about biochemestry and about functional nutrition. So everyone that knows more than me, kicks my ass off (like my doctor) and I just feel diminished, ignorant and fearful.
RRM wrote:
JeffC wrote: Why not worry much more about AGEs forming inside the body because of high fruit/fructose consumption?
Both sugars (particularly reducing sugars, including those from complex sugars) and amino acids promote the formation of AGES,
and fatty acids the formation of ALEs (particularly omega-3 fatty acids, as they are very susceptible to lipoxidation.).
So, yes, you can opt for a diet of mainly fats instead, but that would increase endogenous lipoxidation and ALEs formation.

Regarding the endogenous formation of both AGEs and ALEs, i rely on autophagy.
For example, when I read this from RRM, I was like: "So this means everyone that is not fasting on Wai is basically slowly killing himself?"
Ok, I know this is a little exaggerated, but, for example for me it is very hard to identify my energy levels needs since most of the time I don't feel hungry at all. So I end up eating/drinking without really knowing if my body wants it or not.
Kasper
Posts: 898
Joined: Sat 24 Apr 2010 12:48
Location: Utrecht; The Netherlands

Re: calcium in oranges and fiber

Postby Kasper » Tue 24 May 2016 01:20

"Unlike glucose, which is metabolized widely in the body, fructose is metabolized almost completely in the liver in humans, where it is directed toward replenishment of liver glycogen and triglyceride synthesis. Under one percent of ingested fructose is directly converted to plasma triglyceride."

So I believe fructose is not likely to cause AGE formation in the blood because it is mainly metabolized in the liver. In the end, fructose will end up as glucose, just in longer way which makes the GI of fruit lower which is thought to be beneficial.

There are some studies done of sucrose and fructose causing fatty liver bur choline found abundant in egg yolks prevents that.
Novidez
Posts: 377
Joined: Thu 25 Feb 2016 23:34

Re: Fructose - fat, pancreatic cancer, insulin

Postby Novidez » Tue 24 May 2016 23:09

I just wonder how can I know if my liver glycogen depots are full or not... And that's the main issue, right? It starts to transform on triglycerides and then fatty-liver disease can occur. Now, is this the only issue...?

And again, here we are reading things on the Internet and believing that they are completely true.
I don't know what is going on inside my body. Maybe we are killing ourselves, but since we don't know and we can't really feel it, we continue doing the same thing.
Pretty much like on cooking foods: well, it tastes good, we don't see any harmful effects on a short period of time, then we continue doing it.
Kasper
Posts: 898
Joined: Sat 24 Apr 2010 12:48
Location: Utrecht; The Netherlands

Re: Fructose - fat, pancreatic cancer, insulin

Postby Kasper » Wed 25 May 2016 00:53

You can test if you have a fatty liver, if you want to be sure.
User avatar
Oscar
Administrator
Posts: 4346
Joined: Mon 15 Aug 2005 00:01

Re: Fructose - fat, pancreatic cancer, insulin

Postby Oscar » Wed 25 May 2016 12:28

You can always educate yourself. Biochemistry info can be easily found online. It'll take some time to understand, but that is a good basis from which you can look at claims that people make. Otherwise you can feel like a ping pong ball bouncing from one theory to the next.

Afaik, the issue with (pure) fructose is that it doesn't trigger the "having had enough" signal, which means that you'll consume more than you'd need. An example is soft drinks with HFCS. When you consume fructose in a natural form, usually together with glucose, then this is not an issue.

Most people who say that sugar is harmful have no clue and/or are repeating what others have said :wink:
Usually it comes from the food that contains the sugar, or the form the sugar is in (HFCS, as discussed above).
Kasper
Posts: 898
Joined: Sat 24 Apr 2010 12:48
Location: Utrecht; The Netherlands

Re: Fructose - fat, pancreatic cancer, insulin

Postby Kasper » Wed 25 May 2016 15:06

Novidez
Posts: 377
Joined: Thu 25 Feb 2016 23:34

Re: Fructose - fat, pancreatic cancer, insulin

Postby Novidez » Wed 25 May 2016 20:26

Kasper wrote:You can test if you have a fatty liver, if you want to be sure.
I didn't say I had fatty liver and I think I don't have.
But that may be one of the major concerns when people talk about fructose.
Kasper wrote:This is quite informative:

http://blog.cholesterol-and-health.com/ ... yolks.html
Have to check that, thanks!
But, btw, here we are again reading things on the Internet from Chris Masterjohn's blog. Who is Chris Masterjohn? Is he trustworthy? :roll:
Oscar wrote:You can always educate yourself. Biochemistry info can be easily found online. It'll take some time to understand, but that is a good basis from which you can look at claims that people make. Otherwise you can feel like a ping pong ball bouncing from one theory to the next.
It is exactly like that: I feel like a Ping Pong ball. The only thing is that I don't know where to start and also I don't have time atm :(
For example, I would continue doing what I was doing in the beginning (4L OJ + Salmon + Egg Yolks) if I felt stable enough. But I wasn't. I kept changing trying to eliminate the symptoms I had and I could never figure it out. Now that I stopped IF, I am feeling better regarding my anxiety and breathing. However my legs are really numb. So, symptom after symptom, I am never stable. And the worst is that I don't have sufficient knowledge to know what do I have to change. With this, hearing other opinions make me scared and they can gladly say to me "you just got what you deserve".
Oscar wrote:Afaik, the issue with (pure) fructose is that it doesn't trigger the "having had enough" signal, which means that you'll consume more than you'd need. An example is soft drinks with HFCS. When you consume fructose in a natural form, usually together with glucose, then this is not an issue.

Most people who say that sugar is harmful have no clue and/or are repeating what others have said :wink:
Usually it comes from the food that contains the sugar, or the form the sugar is in (HFCS, as discussed above).
It is probably that.
Even when I try to discuss with a physician with that opinion, I can't really start and serious debate because he would say that doesn't have time to discuss about such a obvious thing. And, of course, that he has work to do.
With firmer arguments maybe I would have changed his mind... Still don't have them yet.
Unless I call one of you on the phone and I put you both talking. That would be much easier ;D

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest