• 🛑Hello, this board in now turned off and no new posting.
    Please REGISTER at Anabolic Steroid Forums, and become a member of our NEW community! 💪
  • 💪Muscle Gelz® 30% Off Easter Sale👉www.musclegelz.com Coupon code: EASTER30🐰

fructose vs. glucose and adverse effects study

cpush

Registered User
Registered
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
224
Reaction score
2
Points
0
IML Gear Cream!
From The Heart Scan Blog

The Heart Scan Blog said:
Goodbye, fructose

A carefully-conducted study by a collaborative research group at University of California-Berkeley has finally closed the lid on the fuss over fructose vs. glucose and its purported adverse effects.

The study is published in its entirety here.

Compared to glucose, fructose induced:

1) Four-fold greater intra-abdominal fat accumulation--3% increased intra-abdominal fat with glucose; 14.4% with fructose. (Intraabdominal fat is the variety that blocks insulin responses and causes diabetes and inflammation.)

2) 13.9% increase in LDL cholesterol but doubled Apoprotein B (an index of the number of LDL particles, similar to NMR LDL particle number).

3) 44.9% increase in small LDL, compared to 13.3% with glucose.

4) While glucose (curiously) reduced the net postprandial (after-eating) triglyceride response (area under the curve, AUC), fructose increased postprandial triglycerides 99.2%.


The authors propose that fructose specifically increases liver VLDL production, the lipoprotein particle that yields abnormal after-eating particles, increased LDL, and provides building blocks to manufacture small LDL particles. The authors also persuasively propose that fructose metabolism, unlike glucose, is not inhibited (via feedback loop) by energy intake, i.e., it's as if you are always starving.

Add to this the data that show that fructose increases uric acid (that causes gout and may act as a coronary risk factor), induces leptin resistance, causes metabolic syndrome (pre-diabetes), and increases appetite, and it is clear that fructose is yet another common food additive that, along with wheat, is likely a big part of the reason Americans are fat and diabetic.

Fructose is concentrated, of course, in high-fructose corn syrup, comprising anywhere from 42-90% of total weight. Fructose also composes 50% of sucrose (table sugar). Fructose also figures prominently in many fruits; among the worst culprits are raisins (30% fructose) and honey (41% fructose).

Also, beware of low-fat or non-fat salad dressings (rich with high-fructose corn syrup), ketchup, beer, fruit drinks, fruit juices, all of which are rich sources of this exceptionally fattening, metabolism-bypassing, LDL cholesterol/small LDL/ApoB increasing compound. Ironically, this means that many low-fat foods meant to reduce cholesterol actually increase it when they contain fructose in any form.

When you hear or say "fructose," run the other way, regardless of what the Corn Refiners Association says.

Study - Consuming fructose-sweetened, not glucose-sweetened, beverages increases visceral adiposity and lipids and decreases insulin sensitivity in overweight/obese humans
 
So an apple a day gives you diabetes and a coronary now?

Bummer :(
 
Good read.
 
The way you have titled this thread is misleading as well.

Cause the study was around Glucose or fructose used as a sweetening agent in beverages. when consumed by obese people
 
What a load of horseshit (the presentation not the science). If you see fructose, run the other way? Lets put some reality into the situation. You're someone who watches what they eat, isn't obese, gets some kind of exercise or activity daily and don't drink a quarter of your calories in the form of soda. Now you're having salad and for whatever reason the only dressing you can muster is a low fat italian of some sort. Its like 3-5g of carbs per serving. Should you run the other way? What if you have eaten the fat for your meal and want a bit of flavor but without the added calories from EVOO or full fat dressings?

I hate when people paint a picture to fit an agenda/bias. What the research states, in a very simple way, is that when obese people ingest a quarter of their daily calories in the form of sugar they get more fat and more unhealthy. Wow! Stop the fucking presses! I smell a Nobel Prize on the horizon! And yes the fructose group might have seen the worse outcome of the two, but they both gained about the same weight/body fat. They both became even more resistant to insulin, they both are even more screwed than they were in the beginning. Its like when they fed 10lbs of aspartame per day to rats and then found holes in the brain (or whatever the retarded study concluded)...Aspartame will kill you!

Gimme a break. I eat a banana with oatmeal after my w/o almost daily and I have strawberries with my cottage cheese at night almost daily as well. If anyone thinks that a situation such as mine and the above is even close to the same thing, you seriously have an issue.
 
Fructose vs. glucose

On similar lines, I highly recommed reading "Good Calories vs. Bad Calories."
It's a book that goes into some detail about our nation's food policies and also advocates for limiting our sugar intakes. It was defiinitely an eye opener.

:run:
 
The way you have titled this thread is misleading as well.

Cause the study was around Glucose or fructose used as a sweetening agent in beverages. when consumed by obese people

yeah i thought about that, but posted it in a rush while at work. feel free to change it to something appropriate :)
 
i just know about that fructose is a form of carbohydrate which is mainly found in fruits, fruit juice and also in some vegetables and for glucose is also known as grape sugar, corn sugar and blood sugar and helps in getting back the energy. that all i know which i wanted to share thanks
 
Back
Top