# Fructose



## QueenofSquats (Sep 23, 2002)

Very Very sick of sweetners...aftertaste bad!!!
as fructose if 30-32 on GI, is it safe to use in moderation????


----------



## Mudge (Sep 23, 2002)

Fructose goes straight to the liver I believe, to replenish glycogen stores, so its not like a straight sugar.

http://www.ironmagazineforums.com/s...id=25306&sortby=lastpost&sortorder=descending


----------



## Dr. Pain (Sep 23, 2002)

Fructose = BAD!  


DP


----------



## w8lifter (Sep 23, 2002)

Not what I was looking for, but very interesting 

How Fructose, Insulin and Syndrome X Can Change Your Life 




> Over the past decade or so, various studies have suggested that the body treats fructose in a markedly different way from the simple sugar glucose. What's worrying is that fructose is selectively shunted towards the liver, and the formation of fats.
> 
> For a start, it is metabolized in the liver to provide one of the building blocks of triglycerides. But a fructose-rich diet also directly stimulates the liver to secrete those dangerous triglycerides, just as bombarding the liver with insulin does.
> 
> "Fructose could be mimicking what I think frequent insulin secretion does," Zammit explains. In the short term it could promote insulin resistance in muscle-the first step to syndrome X-and in the long term it could promote heart disease.





> Feed a lab rat fructose, at levels comparable to those in human diets, and it develops insulin resistance, even if it stays lean.
> 
> Last year, researchers at the University of Toronto in Canada fed a high-fructose diet to Syrian golden hamsters, which have a fat metabolism remarkably similar to humans'. In a matter of weeks, the hamsters developed syndrome X-including high triglyceride levels and insulin resistance.


----------



## Dr. Pain (Sep 23, 2002)

DP


----------



## Mudge (Sep 23, 2002)

Doh well...


----------



## Robboe (Sep 24, 2002)

> _*Originally posted by Dr. Pain *_
> Fructose = BAD!
> 
> 
> DP




While for the most part i agree, it's statements like these that give people the impression that fruit should be avoided at all costs.

Remember, there are some quite ignorant people on the net who equate fructose to = fruit and thus, decide that "fruit" = bad. Which is not necessarily the case. Quite far from the truth in some instances.


----------



## Dr. Pain (Sep 24, 2002)

You know that I am PRO certain fruits....point well made though.....cheers! 

The TOPIC was Sweetners! 


DP


----------



## w8lifter (Sep 24, 2002)

> _*Originally posted by The_Chicken_Daddy *_
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Not to mention...if you actually read the article I linked to....it distinguishes between fruit and fructose used as a sweetner.


----------



## Yanick (Sep 24, 2002)

what's different from the fructose in fruits and the fructose such as HFCS? 

BTW, i'm actually pro-fruit and have had a lot of debates on LC forums about eating fruit (small amounts, like 1-2 apples per carb up) while carbing up.


----------



## Robboe (Sep 24, 2002)

LC?


----------



## Mudge (Sep 24, 2002)

Low Carb..?


----------



## Yanick (Sep 24, 2002)

Low Carb.


----------



## w8lifter (Sep 24, 2002)

> _*Originally posted by Yanick *_
> what's different from the fructose in fruits and the fructose such as HFCS?



Fructose is No Answer For a Sweetener 

And just for the hell of it.....
Fructose Raises Triglyceride Levels


----------



## Yanick (Sep 24, 2002)

> _*Originally posted by w8lifter *_
> 
> 
> Fructose is No Answer For a Sweetener
> ...



That article makes no distinction between the fructose in fruits and the fructose in HFCS.

And judging from all of the side effects of fructose, why would you guys ever prescribe fruit to anyone?

I'm still eating my apple/peach with oatmeal and preserves during my carb-up though


----------



## QueenofSquats (Sep 24, 2002)

Geee!!! wow!! fructose is out...lol..I bought stevia yesterday again...I do eat an apple with my oats in morning, is that fine?? so as I crave muffins everyday..to sweetened that how is low GI fruit??? so when a person follows this lifestyle and hey we are all young right lol...lets say in 10 years you want to eat a treat once in a while or you get married and you want to have a piece of cake on your wedding as your body is so use to no crap in the system if you ever eat sugar than will it work totally against you??? do you do this for the rest of your life?? and if you don't than evetually when you start eating more carbs, will you become a ballon?? what about sodium?? how much sodium is safe...


----------



## Duncan (Sep 24, 2002)

Unless you are a competitive BBer, you do not have to micromanage your diet to this extent.  Just stay in a caloric deficit when trying to lose.


----------



## Yanick (Sep 24, 2002)

> _*Originally posted by Duncan *_
> Unless you are a competitive BBer, you do not have to micromanage your diet to this extent.  Just stay in a caloric deficit when trying to lose.



Yes i totally agree.  However i enjoy the learning part of bb'ing just as much as i like bb'ing.  So much so that the learning has become a hobby in and of itself, for me.

Having said that, i still don't know the difference between the fructose found in fruits (say apple) and of that found in High Fructose Corn Syrup.  It seems to me that none exists, so if you want to micro manage your diet to such an extent, why eat fruits ever?

It seems that the fructose, with all the side effects like robbing minerals etc etc, is just not worth the phytonutrients/polyphenols/antioxidants that come in the fruit.


----------



## Duncan (Sep 24, 2002)

Fruits are not just fructose, they are a combo of sucrose, fructose, and glucose.  High fructose corn syrup is 55% fructose and 45 percent glucose.  An Apple is 7% glucose, 40% fructose, and 25% sucrose (I have to say that the reason these numbers do not add up to 100% is that this is the % of totaly solids, not just sugars).  I am just assuming here, but I imagine that most of the problem with high fructose corn syrup is that it is more or less 50/50 in terms of it's distrinbution.  SO what would happen is that the glucose would cause an immediate insulin response and the fructose would cause an insulin response after it makes it's way to the liver and is converted to glucose.  I would imagine over time, this COULD lead to insulin resistance.  Since some fruits have very low levels of glucose, apples and peaches are both 7% and, therefore, one would not see a significant immediate insulin response.


----------



## w8lifter (Sep 24, 2002)

Thank you Duncan.



> _*Originally posted by Yanick *_
> 
> 
> That article makes no distinction between the fructose in fruits and the fructose in HFCS.



Opening sentence:

_The consumption of fructose *(corn syrup)* has risen considerably in the general population within recent years. _

_This increase is due to several factors. There was a decreased use of cane and beet sugar (sucrose) in processed foods and a wide spread use of corn syrup due to economics. _

_Today fructose is not only being used by some diabetics but it is used for a variety of foods, drinks and confectionery around the world. It is used for candies for diabetics, desserts for weight watchers, drinks for the sportsman and jelly for the health conscious.
_

_Many times fructose and sorbitol are substituted for glucose in parenteral nutrition (intervenious feeding, IV). _

Seems very clear to me that they are talking about HFCS!


----------



## w8lifter (Sep 24, 2002)

> _*Originally posted by Duncan *_
> Unless you are a competitive BBer, you do not have to micromanage your diet to this extent.  Just stay in a caloric deficit when trying to lose.




While I disagree w/ the generalization of your statement (mainly because this is a BB forum, and retention of LBM is of importance as opposed to just losing "weight", which is what it implies) I understand the point you're trying to make and agree to an extent. We (DP & I, as do others) present information here to "inform" and "educate" others...as always, it is up to each individual to decide what they want to follow.....In other words....take what you want/can, and leave the rest!


----------



## Duncan (Sep 24, 2002)

I hear ya, I was just answering Queen of Squats question about whether she should give up all fructose/cake/crap.  My answer was directed towards her and not all on the board.  I personally will not be giving up:

Beer
Any form of liquor
Strawberrry Daquiris (I know it is a liquor, but I feel it deserves special consideration)
Cherry pie
Pizza


----------



## w8lifter (Sep 24, 2002)

*Facts about fructose you're not supposed to know...*


*New research shows that fructose in food -- also known as high fructose corn syrup -*- could be a strong risk factor for a heart attack among middle-aged and elderly men.

*High fructose corn syrup is added to foods to make them taste sweeter. Because of its "natural" connotations, fructose is often perceived as a healthy alternative to other sweeteners. You'll find it in soft drinks, ice cream and frozen desserts, especially in the low-fat versions. *

In fact, check the ingredients label on a can of Coca-Cola®, and you'll see high fructose corn syrup listed as the main ingredient. 

Although the United States Food and Drug Administration reported in 1986 that there was "no conclusive evidence" linking sugars (such as fructose) with a negative effect on your health, their high rate of consumption has raised concern. In fact, a Minnesota research team has shown that just 6 weeks on a high fructose diet raised plasma triglycerides in men by 32%. 

What are plasma triglycerides and why should I care?
The term plasma triglycerides refers to the levels of fat in your blood. There is a growing body of evidence linking plasma triglycerides to the "clogging" of your arteries, which may increase the risk of a heart attack or stroke. 

In fact, some researchers now think that plasma triglycerides levels may actually be more important than cholesterol levels in establishing your heart disease risk. 

How did the researchers measure the effects of fructose?
During the first 6 weeks of the study, subjects were given a diet deriving 17% of its total calories from fructose. In the second stage of the study, the fructose was replaced with glucose. The rest of the diet remained the same.


The women showed no significant difference in plasma triglycerides in response to the changes in diet. 


In contrast, after just 7 days on the high-fructose diet, the men had significantly higher plasma triglycerides values than during the glucose diet.

Granted, this study did use large amounts of fructose -- twice as much fructose as found in the typical American diet. However, based on current estimates, there are approximately 27,000,000 Americans consuming at least this much fructose on a daily basis. 

Why have previous studies shown that fructose has no negative effect on plasma triglycerides?
Although previous research has shown that fructose has no negative effect on plasma triglycerides, many of these studies compared fructose with sucrose (table sugar). However, when sucrose is digested, it is broken down into both glucose and fructose -- so the comparison isn't really valid. 

In contrast, when a diet high in fructose is compared with a diet that contains virtually no fructose, there is a consistent body of evidence showing that fructose adversely affects plasma triglycerides.

There is also research to show that consuming fructose after you exercise can reduce the amount of fat calories you burn in the hours immediately after a workout.

So, what can I take home and use from this study?

*Firstly, this study doesn't suggest that you avoid fruit. Fructose accounts for less than 10% of the weight of fruit such as strawberries, bananas or apples.

Dried fruit and fruit juices, on the other hand, are far more concentrated sources of fructose, and their consumption should be restricted. *This applies to men in particular, as the effect of fructose on triglyceride levels appears to be greater in men than women.

Check food labels for high fructose corn syrup. It's a common ingredient in fat-free or low-fat foods, and another good reason why low-fat foods are not a good choice for people who are healthy and want to stay that way.


----------



## w8lifter (Sep 24, 2002)

I do not have this entire article since I'm not a member, but I wanted to add what I do have just FYI  


*The facts about fructose and body fat...*


Good nutrition is the single most important step you can take towards a leaner, stronger body. It's far more powerful than exercise alone. You can spend as much time in the gym as you like. But if you're not eating the right foods at least 90% of the time, it's highly unlikely you'll get the results you deserve.

The closer you are to your goal, whether it's getting your body fat percentage down to single digits or packing on 10 pounds of lean muscle, knowing what to eat ??? and, just as importantly, what not to eat ??? assumes far greater importance. 

Fructose is one good example. Some authors blame the "invasion" of fructose for the obesity epidemic sweeping both the United States and Great Britain. Consequently, many people do all they can to eliminate fructose from their diet.

Fructose

Fructose is a type of simple sugar (also known as a simple carbohydrate) found in fruit. The anti-fructose brigade is correct when they point out that your body handles fructose a little differently than other simple sugars. A good example comes from a study published in the journal Obesity Research [7]. 

A group of 14 overweight individuals were split into two groups, and assigned to follow either a normal-, or a low-calorie diet. After six days on each diet, subjects were then asked to exercise on a treadmill for 40 minutes at 70-75% VO2max (the equivalent of a brisk walk). 

*After completing the workout, they were then given a meal containing either 50 grams of glucose, or a similar amount of fructose. The figure below shows you the effect of fructose on the number of fat calories burned for three hours after exercise. As you can see, fat oxidation was far lower after the high fructose meal. *


Total number of fat calories burned for 3 hours after exercise following the consumption of either fructose or glucose in subjects fed an energy-balanced diet for 6 days.
It's important to remember that this data was collected after the test subjects had consumed an energy-balanced diet for six days. In other words, for almost a week prior to the exercise session, the number of calories they were consuming was roughly equal to the number of calories they were burning (I'll explain why this matters in just a moment).

To understand why there was such a variation in fat metabolism, it's important to know how the metabolism of fructose differs from that of other simple sugars.

Simple sugars
Foods rich in carbohydrate are usually derived from plants. In fact, milk is probably the only food from animals that contains a significant amount of carbohydrate. 

In the leaves of green plants, carbon dioxide, water, and the energy of the sun are used to form a type of sugar called glucose. That's where the word "carbohydrate" comes from. Carbo means "carbon", while hydrate means "water".

Fructose (also known as levulose) is made when plants simply rearrange the atoms in glucose. Fructose, along with glucose and galactose, is known as a monosaccharide. Some sugars, on the other hand, consist of pairs of sugars. They're called disaccharides. 

The sugar in milk, for example, is known as lactose. It's a disaccharide consisting of glucose and galactose. Sucrose (table sugar) is made when fructose and glucose are joined together. When you see sugar listed on the nutrition label of a food item, the label is referring to these simple sugars. 

The cells of your body can't use food such as bread or pasta. They can't even use a disaccharide like sucrose. Instead, they need glucose. To get this glucose, your digestive system has to turn carbohydrate into a monosaccharide. It can then be absorbed through the lining of your small intestine. However, once it enters your bloodstream, fructose follows a slightly different "path" than...


----------



## Yanick (Sep 24, 2002)

> _*Originally posted by w8lifter *_
> _The consumption of fructose *(corn syrup)* has risen considerably in the general population within recent years. _
> 
> _This increase is due to several factors. There was a decreased use of cane and beet sugar (sucrose) in processed foods and a wide spread use of corn syrup due to economics. _
> ...



Yes but my question was not "why is HFCS bad for you?" I know all the cons of fructose.  It was, "what is different about the fructose found in fruit and the fructose found in HFCS and CS?"

And Dunc asnwered my question by saying that it's not that the fructose is different it's that the ratio of glucose/sucrose:fructose is greater in fruits than that of HFCS.


----------



## Dr. Pain (Sep 24, 2002)

> _*Originally posted by Dr. Pain *_
> Fructose = BAD!
> 
> 
> DP



DP


----------



## Yanick (Sep 24, 2002)

DP,

I always remembered you arguing FOR fruits back on ABC.  Or are you just talking about getting into competition bodyfat levels in this case?


----------



## Duncan (Sep 24, 2002)

The only thing that experiment shows is that fructose, when fed to overweight people post workout slows down fat oxidation.    Whether  this decrease in fat oxidation  was significant or not is not evident since the chart is not there.  Also, I see that they used the term, "A similar amount of fructose...." instead of the same amount of fructose.  This generally means the amounts were not exactly the same.  I would guess that most of the sample could not ingest 50g of fructose without getting an upset stomach so they had to go with the amount they could ingest without getting sick.  Agree or disagree with me if you will, but I rip apart experiments far better than this one everyday at work.  I would love to see if these people were tested for insulin resistance and why they only used 14 people and only overwieght ones.  I would bet my left nut they barely reached statistical significane if they did at all.

w8, what is the name of the experiment, I may be able to find the full article and post it.


----------



## Duncan (Sep 24, 2002)

Taken from factsaboutfitness.com...

_
The one food you must avoid if you want to burn fat during your next workout...
Want to burn more fat during your next workout? Make sure to avoid carbohydrates before you train.

A research team from the University of Texas report that 60 grams of carbohydrate taken in the hour prior to exercise reduces the amount of fat used for fuel. Subjects taking part in the the study exercised for 60 minutes after either:

Consuming nothing

Consuming 60 grams of fructose

Consuming 60 grams of glucose

The table below shows you how fat burning dropped after consumption of either fructose or glucose following 20-30 minutes of exercise.

TABLE 1: The reduction in fat oxidation following the consumption of either fructose or glucose post-exercise.
Trial Reduction in Fat Oxidation 
Glucose - 49% 
Fructose - 31% 

As you can see, there was a marked drop in fat oxidation during both trials. In fact, when they trained on an empty stomach, subjects burned almost twice as much fat as they did after consuming glucose.

It's all to do with the availability of fuel. Give your body carbohydrate, and it simply uses more carbohydrate. Deprive it of carbohydrate, and it relies to a greater extent on fat as a fuel.

Jeffrey F. Horowitz, the scientist leading the study, agrees. 


"To maintain high rates of fat oxidation at rest and during subsequent exercise," Horowitz points out, "people should not eat even small amounts of carbohydrate before exercise."
Now, this doesn't necessarily apply for everyone. After all, there's plenty of research showing that people training for muscle size and strength would actually benefit from a carbohydrate drink before or during a workout.

But if your main goal is fat loss then the message is clear -- if you can, avoid carbohydrate for at least four hours before you train.
_

*According to this study, while both are poor choices pre-workout, fructose ingested prior to a workout reduces fat oxidation less than glucose, that would mean it is a better pre- workout carb if one were to want to ingest a preworkout carb.*


----------



## w8lifter (Sep 24, 2002)

> _*Originally posted by Duncan *_
> 
> 
> w8, what is the name of the experiment, I may be able to find the full article and post it.



Reference

Bantle, J.P., Raatz, S.K., Thomas, W., & Georgopoulos, A. (2000). Effects of dietary fructose on plasma lipids in healthy subjects. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 72, 1128-1134


----------



## Duncan (Sep 24, 2002)

Spanks.


----------



## Robboe (Sep 25, 2002)

> _*Originally posted by Duncan *_
> Taken from factsaboutfitness.com...
> 
> _
> ...




Did that study measure the amount of fat loss just post exercise or for the entire day?

I'm not sure where to start this or how to start this, but here goes...

During exercise, if you burn a higher percentage of fat _during_, you tend to burn more carbs during the remainder of the day.

If you burn a higher percentage of carbs during, you tend to burn more fat during the remainder of the day. (this is one reason why HIIT is recommended over plain ol' duration aerobic btw).

So while that study can very well be used to deomnstrate that avoiding carbs before exercise may result in more fat being burned, for the entire day the basic concept it comes down to is calories, since over a 24 hour period the body seems to balance everything out.

Of course, when it comes down to more stubborn fat deposits and when an individual is straying further below their setpoint, it may be more of an issue to avoid carbs around training and to keep insulin levels lower (via meals predominatly fat+pro+fibre with peridical carb loads).


----------



## Duncan (Sep 25, 2002)

It was for the entire day, I believe.


----------

