Dr. Mercola January 05 2002 19,811 views
By Nancy Appleton, Ph.D.
The consumption of fructose (corn syrup) has risen considerably in the general population within recent years. In 1980 the average person ate 39 pounds of fructose and 84 pounds of sucrose. In 1994 the average person ate 66 pounds of sucrose and 83 pounds of fructose. This 149 pounds is approximately 19% of the average person's diet.
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. Corn is much cheaper and twice as sweet as table sugar. It is absorbed only 40% as quickly as glucose and causes only a modest rise in blood sugar.
A few years ago the medical community revealed that there was good news for diabetics. Many people had previously known that table sugar (sucrose) was not a healthy food for diabetics because it raised their blood sugar levels above normal.
Since diabetics have a hard time maintaining healthy blood sugar levels, doctors counseled diabetics not to eat sugar. The new revelation was that diabetics could eat fructose because fructose did not raise their blood sugar level extremely high. So far so good, but there is more.
Many doctors were recommending fructose instead of glucose. 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.
The medical community recommended it because of a low increase in glucose in the blood. The scientists did not look at other factors in the body when a person eats sugar. Let's look at some of these factors now.
Fructose browns food more readily (Maillard reaction) than with glucose. This may seem like a good idea, but it is not.
The Maillard reaction, a browning reaction, happens with any sugar. With fructose it happens seven times faster with than glucose, results in a decrease in protein quality and a toxicity of protein in the body.
This is due to the loss of amino acid residues and decreased protein digestibility. Maillard products can inhibit the uptake and metabolism of free amino acids and other nutrients such as zinc and some advanced Maillard products have mutagenic and/or carcinogenic properties. The Maillard reactions between proteins and fructose, glucose, and other sugars may play a role in aging and in some clinical complications of diabetes.
The balance of minerals in the body is very important for the function of vitamins, enzymes and other body function. When the minerals are out of the right relationship, the body chemistry suffers. The presence of diarrhea might be the cause of decreased absorption of minerals.
These changes are also thought to be markers for aging. The scientists say that it is the fructose molecule in the sucrose, not the glucose, which plays the larger problem.
Fructose raises serum triglycerides significantly. As a left-handed sugar, fructose digestion is very low. For complete internal conversion of fructose into glucose and acetates, it must rob ATP energy stores from the liver.
It seems that the magnitude of the deleterious effects varies depending on such factors as age, sex, baseline glucose, insulin, and triglyceride concentrations, the presence of insulin resistance, and the amount of dietary fructose consumed.
Some people are more sensitive to fructose. They include hypertensive, hyperinsulinemic, hypertriglyceridemic, non?insulin dependent diabetic people, people with functional bowel disease and postmenopausal women.
There is a continuing increase in sugar consumption in the United States. We now eat 153 pounds of sugar per person per year.
This increase is mostly in the form of fructose. From the research presented, it seems that this increase is going to have a negative influence on our health.
Nancy Appleton, Ph.D. is a clinical nutritionist, researcher, lecturer, and author of Lick the Sugar, Healthy Bones, Heal Yourself With Natural Foods and the Curse Of Louis Pasteur and her new book Lick the Sugar Habit Sugar Counter.
Her website is www.NancyAppleton.com.
Many thanks to Dr. Appleton for contributing this expansion on the many reasons why you will not want to be fooled by those who claim that fructose is a "safe" sugar and can be eaten without harm.
References:
1. Beatrice Trum Hunter, "Confusing Consumers About Sugar Intake," CONSUMERS' RESEARCH 78, no 1 (January 1995): 14-17. 2. Judith Hallfrisch, "Metabolic Effects of Dietary Fructose," FASEB JOURNAL 4 (June 1990): 2652-2660. 3. H. F. Bunn and P. J. Higgins, "Reaction of Nonosaccharides with Proteins; Possible Evolutionary Significance." SCIENCE 213 (1981):2222?2244. 4. William L Dills Jr., "Protein Fructosylation: Fructose and the Maillard Reaction," AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NUTRITION 58 (suppl) (1993): 779S-787S. 5. J. Hallfrisch et al., "The Effects of Fructose on Blood Lipid Levels," AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NUTRITION 37, no, 3 (1983): 740-748 6. Claire B. Hollenbeck, "Dietary Fructose Effects on Lipoprotein Metabolism and Risk for Coronary Artery Disease," AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NUTRITION 58 (suppl), (1993): 800S-807S. 7. Hallfrisch, 1990. 8. J. Macdonald, Anne Keyser, and Deborah Pacy, "Some Effects, in Man, of Varying the Load of Glucose, Sucrose, Fructose, or Sorbitol on Various Metabolites in Blood," AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NUTRITION 31 (August 1978)): 1305-1311. 9. D. Zakim and R. H. Herman, AFructose Metabolism II,@ AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NUTRITION 21: 315-319, 1968 10. A. E. Bender and K. B. Damji, "Some Effects of Dietary Sucrose," WORLD REVIEW OF NUTRITION AND DIETETICS 15 (1972): 104-155. 11. Hunter 12. Hunter 13. A. E. Bergstra, A. G. Lemmens, and A. C. Beynens, "Dietary Fructose vs. Glucose Stimulates Nephrocalcinogenesis in Female Rats," JOURNAL OF NUTRITION 123, no. 7 (July 1993): 1320-1327. 14. R. Ivaturi and C. Kies, "Mineral Balances in Humans as Affected by Fructose, High Fructose Corn Syrup and Sucrose," PLANT FOODS FOR HUMAN NUTRITION 42, no. 2 (1992): 143-151. 15. J. J. Rumessen and E. Gudmand-Hoyer, "Functional Bowel Disease: Malabsorption and Abdominal Distress After Ingestion of Fructose, Sorbitol, and Fructose-Sorbitol Mixtures," GASTROENTEROLOGY 95, no. 3 (September 1988): 694-700. 16. Roger B. Mc Donald, "Influence of Dietary Sucrose on Biological Aging," AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NUTRITION 62 (suppl), (1995): 284s-293s. 17. www.NutritionNewsFocus.com, May 25, 2000. 18. H. Hallfrisch, et al., AThe Effects of Fructose on Blood Lipid Levels,@ AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NUTRITION, 37: 5, 1983, 740-748. 19. Klevay, Leslie, acting director of the U.S. Agriculture Department=s Human Nutrition Research Center, Grand Forks, N.D. 20. Hollenback 21. Hallfrisch. 22. Hunter
1. Beatrice Trum Hunter, "Confusing Consumers About Sugar Intake," CONSUMERS' RESEARCH 78, no 1 (January 1995): 14-17.
2. Judith Hallfrisch, "Metabolic Effects of Dietary Fructose," FASEB JOURNAL 4 (June 1990): 2652-2660.
3. H. F. Bunn and P. J. Higgins, "Reaction of Nonosaccharides with Proteins; Possible Evolutionary Significance." SCIENCE 213 (1981):2222?2244.
4. William L Dills Jr., "Protein Fructosylation: Fructose and the Maillard Reaction," AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NUTRITION 58 (suppl) (1993): 779S-787S.
5. J. Hallfrisch et al., "The Effects of Fructose on Blood Lipid Levels," AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NUTRITION 37, no, 3 (1983): 740-748
6. Claire B. Hollenbeck, "Dietary Fructose Effects on Lipoprotein Metabolism and Risk for Coronary Artery Disease," AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NUTRITION 58 (suppl), (1993): 800S-807S.
7. Hallfrisch, 1990.
8. J. Macdonald, Anne Keyser, and Deborah Pacy, "Some Effects, in Man, of Varying the Load of Glucose, Sucrose, Fructose, or Sorbitol on Various Metabolites in Blood," AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NUTRITION 31 (August 1978)): 1305-1311.
9. D. Zakim and R. H. Herman, AFructose Metabolism II,@ AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NUTRITION 21: 315-319, 1968
10. A. E. Bender and K. B. Damji, "Some Effects of Dietary Sucrose," WORLD REVIEW OF NUTRITION AND DIETETICS 15 (1972): 104-155.
11. Hunter
12. Hunter
13. A. E. Bergstra, A. G. Lemmens, and A. C. Beynens, "Dietary Fructose vs. Glucose Stimulates Nephrocalcinogenesis in Female Rats," JOURNAL OF NUTRITION 123, no. 7 (July 1993): 1320-1327.
14. R. Ivaturi and C. Kies, "Mineral Balances in Humans as Affected by Fructose, High Fructose Corn Syrup and Sucrose," PLANT FOODS FOR HUMAN NUTRITION 42, no. 2 (1992): 143-151.
15. J. J. Rumessen and E. Gudmand-Hoyer, "Functional Bowel Disease: Malabsorption and Abdominal Distress After Ingestion of Fructose, Sorbitol, and Fructose-Sorbitol Mixtures," GASTROENTEROLOGY 95, no. 3 (September 1988): 694-700.
16. Roger B. Mc Donald, "Influence of Dietary Sucrose on Biological Aging," AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NUTRITION 62 (suppl), (1995): 284s-293s.
17. www.NutritionNewsFocus.com, May 25, 2000.
18. H. Hallfrisch, et al., AThe Effects of Fructose on Blood Lipid Levels,@ AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NUTRITION, 37: 5, 1983, 740-748.
19. Klevay, Leslie, acting director of the U.S. Agriculture Department=s Human Nutrition Research Center, Grand Forks, N.D.
20. Hollenback
21. Hallfrisch.
22. Hunter
Related Articles:
Fructose Raises Triglyceride Levels
With all due respect to a peer in academia, I must say I have a few puzzlements on this article.
The Mailard reaction, as I understand it, is an amino acid reaction with a reducing sugar. Glucose is a reducing sugar and fructose is not. This does not mean such a reaction can't be forced with significant heat and natural enzymes in food, but it does appear the fears of the Mailard reaction with fructose might be suspect.
Also the comment that fructose robs ATP from cells in order for the cells to successfully metabolize it (I presume this is what is being said) seems odd to me as well. In standard text book glycolysis of glucose, glucose is converted to 1,6 fructose diphosphate. So the glucose is converted to a form of fructose as an essential part of intermediary metabolism. Fructose does not have to go through a step or two that glucose does. It can be phosphorylated more directly, so it would seem to me.
Off-the-mark statements in such articles seem to bring question to their over all integrity.
Needless to say, I am sure the American diet is way too saturated with simple sugars. I am not convinced fructose is a by itself a villain.
I am somewhat in a state of confusion about the difference between fructose and high fructose corn syrup. Without getting technical about sugars my understanding is fructose is unprocessed derived from honey and fruits. HFCS is processed and derived from corn.
The articles on Dr. Mercola's site seem to lump both sweeteners into a category of sweeteners to avoid.
I have written to the staff and asked for clarification about the difference and was referred back to the articles. Common sense would dictate any excessive consumption of large amounts of any sweetener
isn't healthy.
In a perfect world, we would have food choices without the usual excessive amounts of sweeteners and
salt. In the typical American diet and food stores sugar/fructose/HFCS have become a "food group" and an added ingredient if you take the time to read labels to notice.
What is the alternative....stevia?
The fructose in HFCS and in honey are the same molecule. Cane sugar is sucrose, a double sugar consisting of fructose and glucose. Glucose is the sugar that naturally runs in your blood, and comes from the digestion of starchy foods as well as sucrose containing foods. Too much glucose sends blood sugar up, and also insulin levels, which is not good. But too much fructose has other bad effects, like fat accumulation in the liver and the many other things mentioned in the article. Both need to be limited, but the fructose is worse and is far too common in processed foods these days. A tsp of honey is only about 20 calories, with 3 gm of fructose, and may be fine, but a can of pop is around 200 cal and about 30 gm fructose - way too much. My son discovered that a tsp of agave and a bit of stevia make a fine beverage sweetener - few calories, but tastier than stevia alone.
Just this past week (2009) Dr. Mercola distinguished between HFCS and fructose from genuine, whole fruit, saying that real fruit has plenty of valuable nutrients that go along with with the fructose. No one should overdo the eating of ANY kind of sweet things, including fruit, but you need those lifegiving elements found in blueberries, grapes, citrus fruits, etc.
This information seems to be quite old. Look at the dates on the footnotes. It is comparing fructose and glucose instead of sucrose. It should also make the distinction between high fructose corn syrup in which the glucose is converted to fructose and unprocessed naturally occurring fructose. Fructose (unprocessed) is preferred because it does not cause high levels of blood glucose which requires a high release of insulin which damages artery walls. Honey, being an example of a high fructose sweetener and is considered healthful by most health naturalist, is a excellent choice when caloric restriction is not necessary.