Re: fructose (was: Re: Healthy sports drinks)

[Guest guest]

>>>And I'll also keep reading to try and see if I can figure how

fructose causes diabetes, although except for that one very

preliminary study about triglycerides, I haven't found much. But I'll

bet it does.

***Please do, I'd be interested to know if it does, as well. My bane is my

sweet tooth as well. I did manage to go 3 weeks with almost no sugar of any

kind recently, until something very stressful happened and I went straight

for chocolate and beer. Hmmm...guess I've got a long ways to go.

Suze Fisher

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg/

mailto:s.fisher22@...

[Guest guest]

-

>I may be

>going off the deep end on this, but IMO fructose is bad stuff, at

>least in excess.

Not at all. Isolated fructose is a Very Bad Thing. Some good references

are available on Mercola's site, as I recall.

>My gut feeling is that sugar does cause diabetes.

No gut feeling required. I'm not sure I understand why you're puzzled or

uncertain. There's abundant evidence that high-carb diets and sugar are

bad and cause and contribute to the whole constellation of symptoms of

Syndrome X.

>A common nutrition myth is that sugar spikes the blood sugar, but it

>does not.

Ehh, now I'm starting to think I'm wasting my time with this post if you

believe sugar doesn't spike blood sugar. Granted, different forms of sugar

have different effects on blood sugar levels, fructose tending to elevate

it the least, but what do you think a glucose tolerance test

accomplishes? Nothing? As well as having been wiped out by a GTT once

years ago, I own a glucometer and I've observed the effect of sugar on my

blood sugar level many, many times. First it spikes, then it plummets.

>I think

>those are all symptoms of diabetes. Adult onset diabetes also runs on

>my mom's side of the family. Although I'm lean and fit, I'll bet

>those were all early warning signs.

Again, no bet required. The fact that you're lean and fit is good, but it

doesn't mean you're immune.

Since you're interested in sports, check out

http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/athletic_diet.html -- there are a few

references, though I've come across many more on the subject over the last

few years.

-

[Guest guest]

-

>I would disagree with this - its a lot like cholesterol and heart

>disease.

I'm sorry to be blunt, but that's nonsense. The lipid hypothesis is junk

science, founded on bad assumptions, bad science, supported by commercial

interests, and ignoring tons of sound science to the contrary. The carb

hypothesis, by contrast, is supported by science, though like the notion

that saturated fat is good for you, it too is opposed by commercial interests.

Just for starters, look at the " common sense " hypothesis underlying the

lipid theory of heart disease and the carb theory of diabetes. While it

sounds reasonable that circulating fats " clog up " arteries and that we

should therefore eat fats which are liquid rather than solid, i.e.

polyunsaturated fats, that theory doesn't match up with

reality. Atherosclerosis isn't a mere accumulation of sludge in the

arteries, but a more complex process that involves lesions on artery walls,

attempted repairs by the body, etc. By contrast, the carb theory matches

the data quite well. Carb consumption stimulates insulin. Refined carbs

stress the body's insulin production and response, and over time insulin

resistance develops, heading into diabetes. This matches experience and

science.

To be sure, there's more to the story. For example, polyunsaturated fats

contribute to the problem by suppressing the thyroid and the immune

system. But there's abundant evidence that a low-carb diet will help or

even cure diabetes, and that diabetes is in large part caused by refined carbs.

Again, check out Mercola's site, and since I'm already there, check out

http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/diabetes.html -- another good article with

some decent references.

>but we shouldn't go regarding high

>triglycerides as being causal.

Triglycerides are practically a sideshow. The obsession with a single

blood factor is just junk science. Sure, they're involved, but you can't

take an extremely complex system (the human body) experience a system-wide

breakdown involving many, many sub-systems (diabetes) and assume it all

comes down to one element of that system.

>That measures your own bodies ability to regulate blood sugar levels.

So, let me get this straight, sugars don't cause blood sugar spikes, it's

the body's ability to regulate blood sugar levels that are at fault?

>Here is a URL to

>common foods, you'll not that sugars, particularly fructose, are

>lower than starches as a group:

You won't find me advocating starch consumption either.

-

[Guest guest]

>> >>>And I'll also keep reading to try and see if I can figure how

fructose causes diabetes, although except for that one very preliminary

study about triglycerides, I haven't found much. But I'll bet it does.

<<

>> ***Please do, I'd be interested to know if it does, as well. My bane

is my sweet tooth as well. I did manage to go 3 weeks with almost no

sugar of any kind recently, until something very stressful happened and

I went straight for chocolate and beer. Hmmm...guess I've got a long

ways to go. <<

I'm somewhere in the middle of reading Wiley's " Lights Out " which

explains how sugar causes diabetes and why you went straight for sugar

during stress. Good book.

~ Carma ~

To be perpetually talking sense runs out the mind, as perpetually

ploughing and taking crops runs out the land. The mind must be manured,

and nonsense is very good for the purpose. ~ Boswell

Carma's Corner: http://www.users.qwest.net/~carmapaden/

[Guest guest]

At 11:21 PM 3/28/2002 +0000, you wrote:

> > ***Please do, I'd be interested to know if it does, as well. My bane

>is my

> > sweet tooth as well. I did manage to go 3 weeks with almost no sugar

>of any

> > kind recently, until something very stressful happened and I went

>straight

> > for chocolate and beer. Hmmm...guess I've got a long ways to go.

You might try eating raw fats in lieu of sugars and carbohydrates. Fats

burn very slowly and evenly in the body and, thus, don't store up in the

body as sugars and carbos do. I used to have that " sweet tooth " also and

I've got it under control. Whenever I get that craving I go for the raw

cream or a spoonful of butter or some raw suet. Takes a little longer to

have the effect (maybe an hour or less) but it's worth the wait. When

stress arises the body is much more able to handle it without additional

" fuel " .

-=mark=-

[Guest guest]

Any thoughts on fructose compounding recently patented by Melaleuca to be

added

to supplements? Is supposedly a transmitter of minerals from digestion into

the

cells.

Wanita

[Guest guest]

-

>Insulin is essential to good

>health and its being considered a toxin just like cholesterol.

Who considers it a toxin? I've read the occasional rant, true, even by

MDs, and there are always going to be people who are obsessively

simple-minded, but in general low-carb people are focused on reducing

insulin production from excess to normal and on normalizing insulin

response to avoid and end hyperinsulinemia.

>Bodybuilders actually shoot up insulin

>because one of its functions is to drive amino acids into the muscles.

Bodybuilders do many stupid things that are unrelated to sound dietary

practice.

>The 'clog your

>arteries' idea was long since discarded by researchers, the problem

>is that the lay nutrition writers don't keep up with much research.

It's been discarded by researchers, but lay writers aren't the only ones

still promulgating the idea. My girlfriend, who's been put on a low-fat

ultra-low-saturated-fat diet by her doctors and nutritionist, is fed the

clogging-her-arteries theory and unfortunately believes anything the AHA

and other authority figures say.

> By contrast, the carb theory matches

> > the data quite well. Carb consumption stimulates insulin. Refined

>carbs

> > stress the body's insulin production and response, and over time

>insulin

> > resistance develops, heading into diabetes. This matches

>experience and

> > science.

>

>You realize you could almost literally substitute fat, cholesterol,

>atherosclerosis and heart disease for carbs, insulin, and insulin

>resistance and diabetes and the above statement still works?

Not at all. Not even remotely. People have been trying low-fat

low-cholesterol diets for DECADES to address heart disease, and all that's

happened is they've gotten sicker. The overweight and the diabetic, by

contrast, have had tremendously positive results with low-carb diets, to

the point that some doctors and hospitals are even starting to recommend them.

(That's not to say that all low-carb diets are created equal, of course! I

don't know of a single one that addresses all the important issues raised

by the WAPF, like the importance of eating grass-fed meat and raw dairy.)

>All we

>know is that low-carb diets have a beneficial effect on some of the

>surrogate endpoints for diabetes. And I know it bugs you when people

>relate surrogate endpoints for heart disease to fat!

Low-carbing doesn't control surrogate endpoints, it controls the disease

condition itself. People with heart disease who go on the prudent diet

(and its modern variants) may experience improved " indicators " , but their

rate of heart disease doesn't meaningfully change and they get sicker in

other ways. If, by contrast, you consider obesity, high blood sugar and

insulin resistance, plus uncontrollable infection and other disease

conditions, to be " surrogate endpoints " of diabetes, then I suppose from

your perspective you're correct.

>I didn't think that article was so good - it was all surrogate

>endpoints and he gives fructose the thumbs up because its found in

>fruit?

The article isn't ideal. Nor is the site. However, I have yet to find a

single source on diet that is accurate on all points.

>But you just said that carbs stimulate insulin and high insulin

>causes insulin resistance and diabetes!

Refined carbs, and yes, that's essentially the chain of

reactions. However, note the multiplicity of factors involved in that

chain reaction: refined carb consumption (especially when accompanied by a

lack of saturated fat) plus insulin overproduction plus cellular insulin

response plus blood sugar levels -- plus other elements of the chain I

didn't go into, like disturbance of gut flora due to refined sugars and

starches.

The conventional wisdom is that saturated fat consumption results in high

triglycerides, which are a heart disease causative factor. They're not

even connecting refined carbs with triglycerides!

>As mentioned above, I think it has to do with endothelial dysfunction

>and difficulty regulating blood sugar is just a result of that

>underlying problem.

So your theory is that diabetes is caused entirely by polyunsaturated

vegetable oil consumption? I'd certainly agree that's a contributory

factor, and without any PUFA vegetable oil consumption there'd be a lot

less diabetes, but it's hardly the only factor.

>Why not? Weston Price thought the Dinka's were healthier than the

>Masai because they included oats in their diet. They weren't quite as

>tall, but they were stronger and better proportioned. Just because us

>ex-SADers have carbohydrate issues doesn't mean that carbs are

>unhealthy.

I'm not saying " carbs are unhealthy " . I'm saying " certain carbs are

unhealthy " , or more properly, " most of the carbs found in the SAD and

modern diets generally are unhealthy " . Certain vegetables -- very

healthy. Fruits -- likewise. Grains, I'd argue, are at best better

tolerated by some people but are never going to contribute to optimum

health. Elaine Gottschall wrote an entire book, _Breaking The Vicious

Cycle_, on the subject of which carbs are healthy to eat and which must be

avoided. I highly recommend it, with one cautionary note: she's admitted

she didn't get into all the gory details of, for example, advocating

grass-fed meat, because she didn't want to make the diet so forbidding and

difficult that sick people wouldn't try it.

-