Fructose is really bad

[darxus]

It not only completely fails to trigger your body's awareness that you have eaten enough, but it actively inhibits it, making your brain think you're starving. Which has caused us a lot of problems, because it's in everything.

It's similarly bad in High Fructose Corn Syrup and sucrose (labeled "sugar", cane sugar, "real sugar"), but glucose is fine because the feedback loop works fine. Lactose is fine.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM 1.5 hours.
Robert H. Lustig, MD, UCSF Professor of Pediatrics in the Division of Endocrinology.
Has a great graph showing what happens when, primarily, he gets obese kids to stop drinking anything but water and milk (instead of soda and juice). They stop being obese.

Got the video from a blog on the subject.

I've been consuming lots of HFCS again lately. Tonight my dinner was a whole avocado (man that was decadent), sweet potato (with butter), and chicken breast (with salt). With lots of leftovers for tomorrow.

Comments

[milktree.livejournal.com]

That's horrifying.

I'm going to change the way I eat.

[darxus.livejournal.com]

Cool. I failed to point out that "sucrose" is what is labeled as "sugar" - cane sugar, table sugar, "real sugar", etc. Just as bad as HFCS. Fixed. (I hadn't completely made the connection when I posted.)

[agnosticoracle.livejournal.com]

There is a lot of craziness about HFCS out there. The basic chemistry is simple. HFCS and sugar are both glucose and fructose. The HFCS in soda is generally 55% fructose, while the HFCS in everything else is about 42% fructose. Cane sugar is 50% fructose. Fresh pears have over 60% fructose.

The fructose and glucose in cane sugar are chemically bound, while the glucose and fructose in HFCS are unbound. The first thing that happens when you digest cane sugar is an enzyme breaks the fructose and glucose apart. After that HFCS and cane sugar are digested the same.

It is possible the slight differences in percentages and short period of digestion difference could result in significant health differences. However, research to show it has been conflicting. The most likely explanation is any differences are minor.

However, there is a great deal of consensus in the research that suggests that eating a lot of calories (HFCS or cane sugar) is likely to lead to weight gain, diabetes and other health problems. Lowering your calories is way more important to ones health than whether the calories came from a HFCS or cane sugar.

[darxus.livejournal.com]

The video I linked to seemed to provide plenty of good evidence that getting your calories from fructose, including via HFCS or sucrose, is really bad. And that number of calories consumed alone really isn't the problem.

[agnosticoracle.livejournal.com]

If it is saying that lots of calories from sucrose (cane sugar) and HFCS are both bad that is good information. Though is is claiming high calories from glucose and lactose are just great I'm a tad skeptical.

[darxus.livejournal.com]

Try watching it? He goes into the details of how and where which molecules are converted to what. He's claiming that the problem with fructose / sucrose / HFCS is that not only do we lack the relevant receptor to recognize it as sustenance, it actually blocks other things from being recognized as sustenance, so we don't stop consuming calories when we should. I don't remember the details, I should watch it again and take notes.

[darxus.livejournal.com]

He says the byproducts of fructose in the liver (free fatty acids and JNK1) cause insulin resistance, so leptin doesn't get produced, so your brain not only doesn't realize you consumed the calories of fructose, but also is less aware of other stuff you eat.

Just watched an 11 minute summary of the other video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdMjKEncojQ