fructose (was: Re: Healthy sports drinks)

[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,

Most of everything is bad, whether you mean art, music or science. It

also applies to the science of insulin. Insulin is essential to good

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

even more than cholesterol. Bodybuilders actually shoot up insulin

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

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.

Do keep in mind that the current dogma is that oxidized LDL

cholesterol is what makes arterial plaque inflammed. 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.

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?

We don't know how diabetes works on the cellular level, and we don't

know that high carb and/or high sugar diets causes diabetes. 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!

My own personal theory, not very well fleshed out or referenced, is

that endothelial dysfunction causes diabetes. Oxidation damage causes

endothelial dysfunction, and oxidation damage can occur for several

reasons: too much rancid vegetable oils like margarine and refined

supermarket oils, too much sugar which causes glycation which leads

to oxidation, too few anti-oxidants, lack of catalysts like copper

for free-radical scrounging enzymes like superoxide diminutase etc...

Assuming it is endothelial dysfunction, it could be any or all of the

above factors. Furthermore, insulin would be a red herring. Suppose

rancid vegetable oils *cause* endothelial dysfunction. Then if you

never ate such oils, you could eat all the carbs you wanted and never

get diabetes. However, if you did eat such oils, then your

carbohydrate metabolising abilities would be damaged and the best way

to *manage* diabetes would be to eat a low-carb diet.

> 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.

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?

> >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.

But you just said that carbs stimulate insulin and high insulin

causes insulin resistance and diabetes!

> 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?

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. Blood sugar, like obesity and chronically high

insulin, may create a viscious cycle that progresses the disease, but

it does not cause it.

> >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.

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.