Showing posts with label fructose. Show all posts
Showing posts with label fructose. Show all posts

Friday, May 04, 2012

Natural Controversies: Free Webinar May 15th at 7 PM (CT)

I'm giving a free public webinar May 15th 7 pm CT on Natural Controversies. Register here:  http://americannutritionassociation.org/civicrm/event/info?reset=1&id=32 and use this code for free registration as my guest: SPKGST5629

We’ve all seen contradictory information about natural health products. Sensational reports may depict certain ones as always good or bad for us, but these are often based on inaccurate information. A combination of ignorance, bias, and other errors contribute to this mass confusion.

Take a look at the scientific data that reveals the truth behind some Natural Controversies:


  • What are some of the dieting secrets that work long term?
  • Some experts claim that all sugars are the same to the body; others claim that certain sweeteners like fructose are bad for you. What’s good and bad about fructose and how does it work in the body?
  • Aren’t the vitamins and minerals in food better for us than the forms commonly used in dietary supplements?
  • A few years ago, doctors routinely warned us against taking high doses of vitamin D but now it’s the latest thing.
    • How much vitamin D is considered healthy?
    • What are the safety limits?
    • What is the difference between its forms, D-2 and D-3?
  • Some fish oils are in a triglyceride form while others are in a form called ethyl esters. What are the differences and benefits of each form?
  • Soy foods are highly controversial; with some health gurus warning against its use and others promoting it as an important health food. What does science tell us about the safety of soy foods versus their potential benefits?

• Vitamin E had been touted as important to cardiovascular health until recent studies questioned its safety. Is it safe, at what levels, and why is there so much controversy over this basic essential nutrient?

• Are stearates hydrogenated? Bad for us?

Wednesday, November 03, 2010

The Truth About Fructose Dangers

Pure crystalline fructose is an alternative natural sweetener that has long been used in the natural products industry as a common sugar substitute. Its major claim to fame is that in the short term fructose raises blood sugar far less than sucrose, the primary sugar found in white sugar that is made from sugar cane or sugar beets. Crystalline fructose should not be confused with the synthesized liquid sweetener called high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), which is made by a different process and is a mixture of roughly half fructose and half glucose (dextrose) that is widely used in the beverage and processed food industries. Unlike HFCS, fructose is a naturally occurring sugar made by plant photosynthesis that is a primary sugar in many healthy fruits. Being about 50% sweeter than sucrose, fructose can also be used more sparingly in recipes to cut their caloric intake by about 1/3.

Because of the unique challenges of formulating natural products without the use of artificial sweeteners or flavorings, sometimes a small amount of fructose is the best match for the flavorings in a product. For example, liquid vitamin B-12 has a distinct flavor profile and other sweeteners do not mask it quite as well as fructose can. Often a mixture of sweeteners may be used to create a “mouth feel” that is acceptable to consumers, who often use white sugar as their sensory standard for sweeteners. While some people may intellectually prefer other sweeteners or even white sugar, in sensory tests the fructose mixture often gets higher marks from consumers, and this leads to high compliance with recommended label uses.

I appreciate the concerns over the use of fructose. It has certainly been abused in the Western diet, especially in the form of HFCS. Americans' fructose consumption on average has tripled over the past century. But increased consumption of fruit juice and sucrose itself also are implicated in our national health decline; certainly not fructose alone, nor fructose in low doses.

According to Dr. Lustig*, an authority on fructose metabolism, human studies have not consistently shown the effect of fructose to induce insulin resistance; a negative effect reported in some animal and preliminary human studies related to altered liver metabolism. Dr. Lustig also admits that not all human studies show a negative effect of fructose on liver health or metabolic syndrome. There appear to be certain individual factors involved that make such effects somewhat idiosyncratic. Many of the studies cited are cell studies, animal studies giving high doses of fructose to mutant mice, or human studies where consumption of a lot of soft drinks were involved that provided a large number of calories comprising an unhealthy proportion (25% or more) of total daily caloric intake (about 500 calories as fructose every day). Contrast this with a healthy nutritional product that provides only a few calories, a very low percent versus those unhealthy diets!

Dr. Lustig notes that "In the hypocaloric (eg, starvation) state, fructose is as beneficial as glucose"; while also noting it has ill effects in the "hypercaloric state". He also discusses how a small amount of ethanol, a substance with similar liver effects to high fructose diets, is actually health-promoting while large amounts have the opposite effect. This reinforces that the ability of substances to elicit ill effects on the liver are typically dose dependent and require larger-than-normal amounts. In effect, 'the dose makes the poison;' as has been noted for many substances throughout history.

Dr. Lustig specifically cites three what he calls "antidotes" to the negative hepatic (liver) effects of fructose:

1. reduce the amount consumed

2. exercise

3. increase fiber intake.

So, upon reviewing these facts, the consumption of a small amount of fructose is unlikely to be harmful to the general public. Additionally, consumption of reasonable amounts may also be quite harmless if the person gets enough fiber and/or exercise. And the accepted fact that fructose does not directly raise blood glucose still gives it some short term advantages over certain other sweeteners for many people, if consumed at appropriate levels. Faster acting sugars that are higher on the Glycemic Index like glucose (which represents close to half of the sugar content of HFCS) would more immediately impact one's blood sugar, with chronic overuse eventually leading to insufficient/reduced insulin sensitivity (increased insulin resistance) that is associated with a loss of blood sugar control. Higher Glycemic sugars would affect this blood glucose control system much faster than an equivalent amount of pure fructose. And a lack of insulin sensitivity also indicates a problem in properly absorbing and recycling vitamin C in many of our body's cells; especially immune, muscle, and bone cells.

There are a variety of natural sweeteners to fit into most individuals' personalized dietary regime; but I do not promote the indiscriminate use of any sweetener, especially refined or synthetic ones. People like to have choices and will select sweeteners according to their own taste and health issues. For example, some avoid barley malt because of gluten sensitivity or certain other sweeteners because of corn allergies. People on limited diets need to scrutinize the available sweeteners and select what seems right for their own situation. But it's clear that a small amount of almost any natural sweetener, say to sweeten a cup of tea, does not seem to have any demonstrable health risk. For overly large amounts, the potential risks do increase. But a demonstrated risk level typically represents consumption of several hundred calories a day of refined sugars, including fructose, and it obviously is unwise to take in most of our daily carbohydrates in the form of refined sugars of any kind.

Consumption of small amounts of pure crystalline fructose simply doesn’t have a measureable effect on health and doesn’t need to be avoided. It’s the fructose consumed in large quantities in processed foods and beverages, where it comprises perhaps the major source of carbohydrates in the modern diet, that is the real health concern.

* Lustig RH. Fructose: metabolic, hedonic, and societal parallels with ethanol. J Am Diet Assoc. 2010 Sep;110(9):1307-21. PubMed PMID: 20800122.

Monday, April 19, 2010

Agave Nectar Dangers; facts and myths

The people claiming that fructose is worse than sucrose are ignorant and plain wrong. HFCS is typically 42% fructose, mostly glucose; some is 55% fructose.

Is blood sugar no longer an important issue? Diabetes statistics would seem to insist that it is still relevant. In that regard alone, fructose (with a Glycemic Index rating of 20, versus 100 for 100% sucrose white sugar) is far better than sucrose in terms of not provoking high blood sugar and the resulting insulin reactions.

And the repetition that agave nectar production is analogous to HFCS production is mind numbingly simplistic and misleading. In terms of agave production, taking inulin that's made of chains of fructose, adding non-GMO "plant enzymes" to free the fructose, then heating and filtering is not really that unnatural a process; in fact, in some ways quite similar to human digestion. HFCS production involves converting 100% sucrose corn syrup into fructose and then adding pure corn syrup to achieve the 42% or 55% fructose syrup (the rest of the 100% in each form is pure corn syrup as sucrose). There is no corn used to make agave nectar, and sugars are not converted into other forms or blended.

Studies showing that getting 25% of daily calories, around 500 calories, solely from fructose is related to obesity begs the question of why getting nearly all of our carbs from a single sugar, rather than from a mix of sugars along with fiber and starches, is anything other than a fast food worst case scenario. This is not relevant to those taking a little agave nectar in place of other sweeteners. Trying to frighten people who now won't even take a piece of whole fruit or a couple of calories worth of fructose in a chewable or liquid dietary supplement (this is actually happening!) is in my opinion both cynical and misleading. That is not honest nutrition. Common sense should be more common.