.

.
marylin monroe
Showing posts with label high fructose corn syrup. Show all posts
Showing posts with label high fructose corn syrup. Show all posts

Fructose-Nation: No Change in Fructose Availability in the US Since the Early 1970s. So Why Are We Fat, Then?

From fat to Fructose - just another scapegoat for a fundamental problem?
Over the past 5 years or so, the idea that that fructose is to blame for the ever-increasing rates of diabesity has become so popular that hypotheses such as "the fructose consumption has exploded over the past decade" are usually accepted as scientifically verified facts.

A recent paper from the Department of Nutrition and Health Sciences at the University of Nebraska did now remind me that not all things that appear logical and consistent with our believes are necessarily true.

Do we even consume that much fructose?

As Trevor J Carden and Timothy P Carr point out, "the consumption pattern of fructose and other key nutrients" in the past 4 decades, "remains a topic of debate" (Carden. 2013). To determine whether fructose consumption in the US has increased sufficiently to be a casual factor in the rise in obesity prevalence Carden and Carr analyzed the USDA Loss-Adjusted Food Availability Database.
The researchers found that the food availability of glucose and fat, but not fructose, increased in the US between 1970 and 2009.
To calculate the percent change in energy from food groups and individual nutrients, Carden and Carr started initially compiled the available data on the per capita loss-adjusted food availability for 132 individual items were. In a second step they analyzed the corresponding nutrient profiles and used their findings to determine the availability of energy as well as macronutrients and monosaccharides during the years 1970-2009. By comparing the values for a given year to the baselinen in 1970, they did eventually determine the percent change in energy from food groups and individual nutrients.
Figure 1: Change in food energy availability per capita, 1970-2009 (Carden. 2013)
If you take a glance at the data in Figure 1 it's easy to see that their findings indicate that during this 40 year period the total energy availability increased by +10.7%. In that, the main "offenders" were grains and oils, the net change in total fructose availability, on the other hand was 0% - in other words, the added sweeteners (1%) were not even fructose based. Furthermore, Carden and Carr observed that the ...
"[e]nergy available from total glucose (from all digestible food sources) increased 13.0% [and ended up being] more than 3-times greater than fructose." (Carden. 2013)
With 14.6%, the amount of fat increased to a very similar extend as that of glucose. That's a 3x higher increase than for protein (+4.7) and am 1.6x higher increase in energy availability than for carbohydrates ,in general (+9.8).

So, it's the fat and sugar that's to blame? Not the fructose?

Despite the fact that I am not particular fond of the "fructose theory of everything evil", I believe that we got to be cautious about the significance of Trevor J Garden's and Timothy P Carr's conclusion, that their data would "suggest" that fructose is "unlikely to have been a unique causal factor in the increased obesity prevalence". If you take a look at the supplemental data they provided you will find, that their list of 132 foods used to calculate USDA food availability, i.e.
  • Head Lettuce
  • Kale
  • Lima Beans
  • Whole flavored milk
  • Buttermilk
  • Lowfat flavored milk
  • Plain 1-percent milk
  • Plain 2-percent milk
  • Skim milk
  • Eggnog and Half and Half (dairy and fat share of)
  • Sour cream
  • Yogurt
  • Cheeses
  • Lowfat cottage cheese
  • Reg. cottage cheese
  • Frozen yogurt and other misc
  • Ice cream
  • Lowfat ice cream
  • Condensed bulk and canned skim milk
  • Condensed bulk whole milk
  • Condensed canned whole milk
  • Dry buttermilk
  • Dry whole milk
  • Nonfat dry milk
  • Barley products
  • Corn flour and meal
  • Corn hominy and grits
  • Corn starch
  • Durum flour
  • Oat products
  • Rice
  • Rye flour
  • White and whole wheat flour
  • Beef
  • Lamb
  • Pork
  • Veal
  • Chicken
  • Turkey
  • Fish and Shellfish
  • Eggs
  • Great N. Beans
  • Butter
  • Edible beef tallow
  • Lard
  • Margarine
  • Other edible fats and oils
  • Salad and cooking oils
  • Shortening
  • Beer
  • Wine
  • Distilled Spirits
  • Garlic
  • Frozen Veggies
  • Mushrooms
  • Mustard Greens
  • Navy Beans
  • Okra
  • Onions
  • Canned Veggies
  • Other Dry Beans
  • Peas and Lentils
  • Pinto Beans
  • Potatoes
  • Pumpkin
  • Radishes
  • Red Kidney Beans
  • Lettuce
  • Snap Beans
  • Spinach
  • Squash
  • Sweet Corn
  • Sweet Potatoes
  • Tomatoes
  • Turnip Greens
  • Peanuts
  • Tree Nuts
  • Coconuts
  • Refined sugar
  • Dextrose
  • Glucose
  • HFCS
  • Edible syrups
  • Honey
  • Plain whole milk
  • Green Peas
  • Collard Greens
  • Avacado
  • Bananas
  • Blackberries
  • Blueberries
  • Canteloup
  • Cherries
  • Cranberries
  • Dates
  • Figs
  • Grapefruit
  • Grapes
  • Honeydew
  • Kiwifruit
  • Lemons
  • Limes
  • Mangos
  • Olives
  • Oranges
  • Frozen Berries
  • Papayas
  • Peaches
  • Pears
  • Pineapple
  • Plums and Prunes
  • Raisins
  • Raspberries
  • Stawberries
  • Tangerines
  • Watermelon
  • Artichokes
  • Asparagus
  • Bell Peppers
  • Black Beans
  • Broccoli
  • Brussel Sprouts
  • Cabbage
  • Carrots
  • Cauliflower
  • Celery
  • Cucumbers
  • Eggplant
  • Apples
  • Apricots
  • Chili Peppers
  • Escarole & Endive
... is representative of the variety of foods US citizens eat, but it does not tell you which of these foods, they will eventually select. Let's take apples, coconuts, and white and whole wheat flour as an example triplet. I guess if you had to rank them according to their contribution to the total energy intake of the average US citizen, none of you would hesitate to give me an answer like this: "White and whole wheat flour > apples > coconuts". Without the corresponding "weights" that would tell the scientists that white and whole wheat flour has a 10x higher impact on the average macronutrient composition of the average American diet, we be talking about the nutrient and fructose availability, not the actual intakes.

Better treat the data with the appropriate caution

Unfortunately, the scientists provide only rudimentary information about the impact of food choices, i.e. how much of the items listed above, the average US citizen actually consumes, namely:
  • The food categories that increased the most during this time were grains and fats/oils, having increased 24.2% and 25.3%, respectively. 
  • Caloric sweeteners (including both sucrose and HFCS) increased a modest 1.3%. 
With respect to the sweeteners Carden and Carr emphasize that the "sugar" availability, or as they put it the "monosaccharides available for metabolic absorption" is more than 3x higher than that of fructose.
In other words: Despite the fact that fructose appears to have become ubiquitous, overeating on plain sugar is still 3x easier. That this does not imply that you cannot do so, is the main and in my humble opinion crucial problem Carden and Carr fail to address. The result of their study do after all not exclude that a significant parts of the US population increased their fructose intake, in spit of the fact that its availability remained essentially the same.
The availability of a given nutrient on the shelves of US supermarket may provide a realistic image of the diets of a society of identical clones, who wheel their carts back and forth through the whole supermarket and buy foods from all each and every shelf. The "real" American, however, is no clone. On the contrary! He has his preferences and for a large part of the society these preferences can be found in the "highly processed, high sugar, high fat"-shelves of the super market. He does not care about the coconuts, apples, kale, mushrooms, olives and all the other foods in the "whole foods" section of the supermarket. They are available, but not what he is looking for.
Figure 2: The increase in total energy intake is one of the most fundamental contributers to the obesity epidemic (adapted from Carden. 2013)
Bottom Line: Despte the disconnect between availability and consumption you will be hard pressed to debate the scientists' conclusion that "increased total energy intake, due to increased availability of foods providing glucose (primarily as starch in grains) and fat" are the major contributors to the increased obesity in the US.

What is annoying, though, is the fact that a vast majority of the researchers fails to realize that their studies already account for the obesogenic effects of nutrient density. The average "high fat diets are bad for ..." is after all based on experiments, where animals or humans are fed diets that are high in both fat and carbohydrates.

Despite the fact that these studies provide a realistic portrayal of the average Western diet, the messages people infer, when they read about these results in the mainstream media is flawed.

It's not about eating less, fat, fructose, sugar or whatever scapegoat the author of the corresponding article believes was to blame for our misery. It's about nothing else than turning our whole way of eating upside down. It's about the right foods, not the right macros and it's about moderation and mindfulness.
References:
  • Carden, T. J., & Carr, T. P. (2013). Food availability of glucose and fat, but not fructose, increased in the US between 1970 and 2009: analysis of the USDA food availability data system. Nutrition journal, 12(1), 130.

Fructose Impairs Fatty Acid Oxidation: Replacing 26g of Starch and Lactose in low GI Meal by Fructose Decreases Postprandial and Exercise Fatty Acid Oxidation by -21%

Image 1: With just bacon and eggs for breakfast you would not run the "risk" of reducing fatty acid oxidation.
A carby meal, i.e. a meal with a high amount of carbohydrates, right before workout triggers a shift in substrate utilization, i.e. the type of energy resource, your body will use to fuel the subsequent workout, from fats to carbohydrates, right!? But does it make difference whether you eat a Snickers bar or drink a can of Coca Cola, if both contained the same amount of carbs? Or, in other words, does the source and/or the glycemic index of your pre-workout meal have an impact on the respiratory quotient (RQ), which is the quotient of the amount of exhaled CO2 and inhaled oxygen, with higher RQs (towards 1.0) indicating that you are predominantly running on carbs, and low RQs (towards 0.7) indicating that you derive a greater part (not all!) of your energy from fatty acids.

Orange juice with breakfast? Better not...

The question, whether GI and carbohydrate type of a meal would have a significant impact on the postprandial glucose, lactate and free fatty acids levels, as well as the insulin response and the subsequent carbohydrate and fatty acid oxidation in the course of a low intensity 1h walk, has been bothering Feng-Hua Sun and his (or her?) colleagues from the Department of Sports Science and Physical Education at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, too. In a counter-balanced crossover design (>=7 days between trials; identical, recorded diet in the 3 days before each trial), all 10 healthy male subjects reported fasted (10-12h) at the laboratory, where they consumed one out of three meals with identical macronutrient composition, yet varying carbohydrate sources and glycemic indexes (cf. figure 1).

Figure 1: Macronutrient (in g) and ingredient composition of
the three test meals (according to Sun. 2011)
As you can see, the meals have identical caloric values and macronutrient compositions. Unfortunately, the differences between the ingredients go beyond their plain sugar vs. starch vs. fructose content. After all, spaghettis are not rice and milk is not ham ... this is a design flaw, of which I think that it impairs the significance of the results, but hey! At least the Chines have grasped the idea that calorie is not a calorie...

After all participants had finished eating their "delicious" breakfast, they remained seated for another 120min, in the course of which they had to drink 2ml of water per kg of body weight every 30 minutes "to ensure adequate hydration and balance the water content of the meals".

After these sedentary 2 hours, the subjects performed a standardized 5 min warm-up at 40%  of their individual VO2 and then completed 60 min of brisk walking at 50% of their VO2max.
Figure 2: Differential postprandial (2 hours) glucose (left) and insulin (right) response to the three test meals
(data adapted from Sun. 2011)
As you can see in figure 2, there were significant difference in the postprandial (120 min before exercise) glucose and insulin response to the different meals. Yet, while the difference between the low and high GI meals was something you should have expected, judged by the GI, the fructose enriched LGF meal should not have produced greater glucose (+63% area under the curve, cf. figure 2, left, small graph) and insulin (+62% area under the curve, cf. figure 2 right, small graph) responses than the low GI, no fructose meal, which, in fact, had a slightly lower glycemic index.
Figure 3: Postprandial (2 hours) lactate concentration in the 10 subjects after ingestion of the three test meals
(data adapted from Sun. 2011)
What is yet even more striking is the profound increase in lactate concentration during the prostprandial (not the exercise phase) in the subjects who consumed the fructose-containing meal (cf. figure 3). With +211% (lactate AUC) the postprandial lactate concentration in the LGF group is more than 3x higher than in the LG group! A clearcut sign for an increase in hepatic glycolysis and probably part of the reason that we are seeing increased carbohydrate and decreased fatty acid oxidation rates in the course of the subsequent walking exercise (cf. figure 4).
Figure 4: Postprandial, during exercise and total substrate utilization (in g) subsequent to the ingestion of the three different test meals (data adapted from Sun. 2011)
Postprandially, the increase in carbohydrate oxidation is even more pronounced in the LGF group than in the HG (sugar) group. That being said, the total reductions in fatty acid oxidation are -21% for the low GI fructose (LGI) and -23% for the high GI sugar (HG) group and thusly, within their respective statistical margins, identical!

With respect to the underlying reasons of this disadvantageous shifts in substrate utilization, Sun et al. speculate, that the mechanism
[...] behind this may be the reduced hyperglycemia and hyperinsulinaemia during the postprandial period following LGI meal consumption. [...] In addition, it is well known that insulin can suppress the lipolysis. This suppression appears to be long lasting, even when insulin concentration has returned to basal levels.
The last part, here, is of particular interest, because, obviously, after a few minutes of walking and with the increased need for carbohydrates the insulin levels of all subjects (regardless of the composition of their prior meals) dropped to levels ~2-3mU/L. Now the insulin response in the LGF group was still smaller than the one of the high GI (HG) group, so that the scientists assume that the ability of the fructose to bypass first rate-limiting enzymes of glycolosis in the liver, which renders it readily available for oxidation, must explain why the ratio of carbohydrate to fat oxidation was still similarly skewed in both, the low GI, plus fructose, and the high GI groups.

Image 2: I wonder if nutritionists will ever understand that there is difference between fructose powder (left) and an apple (right)
Although these results stand in line with the detrimental effects of fructose sweetened foods, I would still like to see two methodologically flawless studies with a) meal 1 not using different foods (I mentioned that in the 4th paragraph of this post already) and b) fructose from whole fruit and not in the form of the powdered poison Sun et al. just dissolved in water and added to their meals... and you know, in case these studies will be done - sometime in the distant future, when mainstream nutritionists will finally understand that not only is a calorie not a calorie, but that powdered fructose is also not an apple, you will read about that on the SuppVersity, first!

Melato Cola™ or What? Fructose for Improved Glucose Metabolism and Melatonin to Counter Fructose Overload

There was a time, when Coke still contained "coke"... so why not add some melatonin for health benefits? I am obviously just kidding here, but a combination of fructose + melatonin may actually make sense.
The title of today's SuppVersity article is confusing, I know. Firstly, it contains the almost heretical notion that fructose could actually improve instead of impair your glucose metabolism and secondly it does not appear to make sense that you would have to use melatonin to counter the pro-diabetic effects of fructose, if the latter is in fact so good for you.

Before you are getting totally confused, let me clarify how the improvements in glucose metabolism and the melatonin-powered diabesity protection go together: Both have been observed in a recent study from the Pontificia Universidad Católica Argentina in Buenos Aires, Argentina (Cardinali. 2013), in the course of which the improved glucose metabolism was nothing but a side-finding of a study Cardinali et al. conducted to  examine the effect of melatonin when it is administered to rodents simultaneously with fructose in the drinking water.

This is the Coke + sufficient sleep study ;-)

Obviously this is not as the subheading would suggest the "coke + sufficient sleep study", but in light of the fact melatonin is after all the "sleep" hormone and in view of the results of a recent study by Senador et al. who observed that fructose had a negative effect on glucose management only, when it was available during the light phase (which is the inactive phase for a rodent; cf. Senador. 2012), it comes close; and that despite the fact that fructose timing was yet not an issue in the study at hand. Instead of modifying the timing, Cardinali et al. used different amounts of fructose with half of the rodents in the experimental arm of the study having a 5% and the other half having a 10% fructose solution as their main water supply.

Figure 1: Glycemia (mg/dL) 0-140min after 2g/kg body weight  glucose tolerance test (Cardinali. 2013)
If we trust the nutritiondata.com information about the average fructose content of a "carbonated beverage, cola, with higher caffeine" ...
  • the rodents in the 10% fructose group were consuming the total carbohydrate equivalent of coke, but with a 100% instead of ~50% fructose content, while
  • the rodents in the 5% fructose group were consuming less total carbohydrates, but roughly the same amount of fructose someone would ingest if he drank nothing but coke.
A direct comparison of either of the groups to the "coke only"-drinking human being is thus not warranted.

It is nevertheless intriguing that the 5% fructose group showed a significantly higher glucose tolerance - not just compared to the 10% fructose group, but also compared to the control group that was fed with water, only (see figure 1).
"Meta-Analysis: Lower Glucose, Insulin and HbA1c Levels From 'Catalytic' Dose of 36g Fructose" | read more
"But isn't fructose the reason you develop diabetes?" Before we get on to the effects of melatonin, I want to emphasize that this is by no means an outlier, in fact, I have written about the catalytic effects of 36g of fructose in a previous post "6x Bananas a Day!? Meta-Analysis: Lower Glucose, Insulin and HbA1c Levels From 'Catalytic' Dose of 36g Fructose" (learn more).

Previous studies have also shown that a 2:1 mixture of glucose + fructose is at least up to the regular glucose only drinks in terms of post-workout glycogen repletion (learn more) - partly because the fructose will keep the liver occupied, while the muscles suck up the glucose.
As previously mentioned the main research interest of the Argentinian scientists was not the effect of fructose on the glucose sensitivity of their rodents, but rather if the administration of 25 μg/mL of melatonin in the tapwater the rodents received would lead to significant changes in the study outcomes.
Figure 2: Effects of melatonin in drinking water with or without 5% [left] and 10% [right] fructose on body weight, systolic blood pressure and glucose response to glucose tolerance test (Cardinali. 2013)
As you can see in figure 1 it did: Melatonin did ameliorate the weight gain, and the increase in blood pressure that was observed even with only 5% fructose in the drinking water. It did not improve the glycemic response of the rats in the 5% fructose group even more, though, but it bulnted the negative effects of the 10% fructose solution had on the glycemic response in the glucose tolerance (figure 2, right).
SuppVersity Suggested Read: "Circadian Rhythmicity - Sunlight, Bluelight, Backlight & Co Mess Learn How THey W/ Your Internal Clock. Plus: Tips & Tricks to Prevent Negative Side-Effects" | read more
Is a melatonin solution the solution? If we also consider the negative effects of 10% fructose feeding on LDL (the rodents on 10% + Mel had even lower LDL than the control), the normalization of triglycerides and the potential therapeutic reduction in uric acid (-30% even vs. control), of which Cardinali et al. point out that it could have therapeutic effects in people with gout and other uric acid related metabolic disorders, it would appear smart that do dissolve the human equivalent dose of 21-35mg melatonin in your drinking water in the morning and keep guzzling it all day long.

Well, as I said, it "would appear to be" smart, but is it really smart? I wouldn't be too sure about that. Despite the fact that that you probably won't die, the chronically increased systemic melatonin levels could have long-term negative consequences on your circadian rhythm that could undo all potential benefits.

Restricting your fructose intake to fructose from fruit, only, getting enough sleep and using melatonin timely, i.e. 20min before bed would thus appear to be a more prudent approach to improve / maintain optimal blood glucose levels and insulin sensitivity. And if you are more into hard facts than "erring on the side of caution", you may consider the acute decrease in glucose tolerance, Cagnacci et al. observed in postmenopausal women, when they participated in a blood glucose test after the administration of 1 mg melatonin more convincing (Cagnacci. 2001).
References:
  • Cagnacci A, Arangino S, Renzi A, Paoletti AM, Melis GB, Cagnacci P, Volpe A. Influence of melatonin administration on glucose tolerance and insulin sensitivity of postmenopausal women. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf). 2001 Mar;54(3):339-46. 
  • Cardinali DP, Bernasconi PA, Reynoso R, Toso CF, Scacchi P. Melatonin may curtail the metabolic syndrome: studies on initial and fully established fructose-induced metabolic syndrome in rats. Int J Mol Sci. 2013 Jan 25;14(2):2502-14.
  • Senador D, Shewale S, Irigoyen MC, Elased KM, Morris M. Effects of restricted fructose access on body weight and blood pressure circadian rhythms. Exp Diabetes Res. 2012;2012:459087.

Bad Fructose? Increased Glycogen Synthesis, Reduced Glycemia, Higher Glucose Oxidation - When Do These Beneficial Effects Occur? And Why Don't They Prevail?

Are there good and bad fructose sources according to the amount, concentration and availability of the super-sweet super-cheap sweetener?
Believe it or not: Fructose was not send by the devil to expel us from the gluttonous paradise of all-you-can-eat buffets. Rather than that, fructose is an important nutrient found naturally in fruit and a component of most healthy diets of which the following paragraphs will highlight that it plays a very important role in normal sugar metabolism.

In contrast to the majority of the recently published literature on fructose, of which Maren R. Laughlin from the NIH writes in a recent paper that it is "not relevant for the purpose of understanding the metabolism of low levels of fructose eaten as a minor fraction of the carbohydrate found in a well-balanced meal", the article at hand will not deal with the ill-consequences of isolated fructose consumption, as they would never occur if people consumed a whole foods diet.
Learn more about alternatives to sugar sweetened beverages at the SuppVersity

Unsatiating Truth About Sweeteners?

Will Artificial Sweeteners Spike Insulin?

Sweeteners & the Gut Microbiome Each is Diff.

Sweeter Than Your Tongue Allows!

Stevia, Much More Than Sweet?

Artif. Sweetened Foods Good, Not Bad for Fat Loss.
This constraint does obviously reduce the pool of studies we can draw on to those whose authors are mindful of the fact that all foods, even "high fructose" fruit, always contain both, fructose and glucose.

Figure 1: Free fructose content of popular beverages made with and without high-fructose corn syrup (Walker. 2014); Popular beverages made with HFCS have a fructose-to-glucose ratio of approximately 60:40, and thus contain 50% more fructose than glucose. Some pure fruit juices even have twice as much fructose as glucose and are not generally better than Pepsi, Coke & Co - better stay away!
Fructose absorption is one of the few problems that have been known even before the whole fructose scare began. In practice, diarrhea and co will yet only occur, when fructose is ingested in (unnaturally) large quantities and in the absence of glucose. When fructose is consumed as part of the disaccharide sucrose (simple table sugar), or together with glucose at roughly similar or even higher levels of glucose, on the other hand, even those who develop diarrhea from fructose sweetened industrial foods will usually have no problem digesting it (Latulippe. 2011).

The malabsorption issue, is yet only one out of several problems that occur in response to the extraction of fructose from its natural "sugar matrix". If we want to understand the synergy between fructose and glucose and why its disturbance has significant ill health effects, it's necessary to first look at how both are metabolized.

While fructose enters the bloodstream more slowly than glucose and its serum levels are much lower, it will persist longer in the circulation. Le et al. (2012), for example, report that the fructose concentration in the peripheral venous blood rose >60-fold from a fasting level of about 0.005 mM to a maximum of 0.317 mM, and returned toward baseline levels by about 3 h when the subjects, 20 healthy adults, ingested 24 oz. of a regular soft drink containing 69 g sucrose (half of which, 34.5 g, is fructose). The glucose levels, on the other hand, rose from about 5.5 mM to 6.8 mM and returned to baseline after 90 min, already.
A single soft drink is already more than the recommendations allow: I am certainly not a fan of the dietary guidelines, but when it comes to added sugars, the <26.2g/day (100kcal/day) limit of which you can argue that it may still be way too high would actually preclude any American who adheres to the dietary recommendations to consume more than 9oz (women) respectively 14oz (men) of the soft drink Le et al. used in their study.
The ups and downs in glucose were accompanied by an increase in insulin release which peaked at about 30 min and the passage of fructose through the liver lead to a significant increase in lactate production, a major byproduct of hepatic fructose and glucose anaerobic metabolism, from 0.7 to 2 mg/dL at 60 min, (levels returned to baseline after 3h).

The changes in lactate metabolism already gave it away: The liver is the major site for fructose metabolism. Fructose enters the portal circulation from the gut. It is transported to the liver and only a very small amount will leave the liver (and pancreas) again to be transported to other non-splanchnic organs such as brain, skeletal muscle and heart. This does not mean that the other organs cannot use fructose, though. In fact, studies have shown that next to the three specialized enzymes, ketohexokinase (KHK, fructokinase), aldolase B, and triokinase which are responsible for the metabolism of fructose in the liver, KHK-A is also expressed in pancreas, intestine, brain, lung, eye, adipose, spleen, skeletal muscle, heart, uterus, and the adrenals. Moreover, the genetic ablation of KHK-A in rodents has shown that the peripheral use of fructose appears to limit the strain on the liver, so that KHK-A null mice will have increased liver fructose levels and liver fat compared to normal rodents on a high fructose diet (Ishimoto. 2012)

Is fructose good for active individuals and athletes?

In animal studies, scientists observed that even with an intake of 2 g/kg sucrose (in solution via tube feeding) there was only a minimal increase in the fructose levels in arterial blood from the aorta and peripheral venous blood, which both rose from 0.02 mM to about 0.15 mM. In the portal ein, on the other hand, the fructose concentration rose from 0.1 mM at baseline to ~1 mM after 30 min, and persisted at 0.6 mM when measured 60 min after gavage. 
Figure 2: Glucose and insulin response during oral glucose tolerance test in healthy (left) and type II diabetic (right) subjects when the OGGT was done with (+F) or without (-F) additional fructose (Moore. 2000 & 2001)
In contrast to the current sentiment that fructose would contribute to the omnipresent deterioration of blood glucose control, experimental evidence from human studies by Moore and colleagues (2000; 2001) shows that the provision of 7.5g of extra fructose reduces the glycemia in response to the ingestion of 75g of glucose by 19% in healthy and by 14% in type II diabetic subject (Moore. 2000 & 2001). Rodent studies comparing natural high fructose sweeteners like agave or honey, show similar benefits on glucose metabolism, as well as body fatness (Nemoseck. 2011; Hooshmand. 2014)

Small amounts of fructose appear to be especially healthy for type II diabetics

What's intriguing is that the aforementioned improvements in blood glucose occurred in the presence of a 21% reduction in plasma insulin in the type II diabetics, when fructose was present. Similarly, a low dose of fructose infused intravenously into type 2 diabetic patients restored the ability of hyperglycemia (and high insulin) to suppress hepatic glucose production and thus restored a major pillar of active glucose management in a 2009 study by Coss-Bu et al. (2009).

As Laughlin points out in the previously mentioned paper, "a large part of the means by which fructose increases glucose disposal is due to its powerful ability to catalyze liver carbohydrate storage." (Laughlin. 2014) This effect was demonstrated in people using 13C nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS) during a hyperinsulinemic, euglycemic clamp (Delarue. 1993).
"C-1-glucose, which is an MRS-visible version of normal glucose, was infused into healthy fasted people with or without the addition of 3.5 μol/kg/min unlabeled fructose, which had the effect of doubling venous plasma fructose to 0.28 mM. This is similar to blood fructose seen after ingestion of a high sugar meal. Even though plasma glucose was kept constant at a basal level of 5 mM, hepatic glucose uptake was more than doubled by the presence of fructose, from 0.31 to 0.79 mmol/L/min. Liver glycogen made from the 13C-labeled glucose was monitored over time. Net liver glycogen synthesis increased almost four-fold from 0.14 to 0.54 mmol/L/min when fructose was added." (my emphasis in Laughlin. 2014)
Since the source of carbon for this extra glycogen was predominantly glucose, not fructose, the increase in glycogen storage did obviously correlate with a reduction in blood glucose levels.

Figure 3: Relationship between net hepatic glucose uptake and the sinusoidal blood fructose concentration - more fructose, higher glucose uptake; but beware (!) there is a ceiling effect, i.e. when a certain threshold is reached the marginal benefit of even more fructose is minimal (Shiota. 1998).
The results of a dog study Shiota et al. present in a 1998 even suggest that the addition of fructose to a high glucose intake can increase the an increase in glucose uptake at constant glucose and insulin levels that's 10-fold larger than the increase in fructose uptake by the liver.

If you take a closer look at the corresponding graph that depicts the hepatic glucose uptake as a function of the serum fructose levels in Shiota's dogs (see Figure 3) you will yet be reminded of the "more is not better principle" which - in this instance - indicates that the more fructose there is, the lower the marginal benefit is going to be. A negative effect at very high fructose levels as it you may have expected it based on the contemporary "fructose is the devil" scare does yet not exist.

Although some of the beneficial effects on glucose levels may in fact be mediated by competitive absorption at the level of the GLUT-2 (glucose + fructose) transporters in the gut, it is thought that the major fructose effect on glucose uptake is via direct effects of fructose-1-phosphate on glucokinase activity, the hepatic isoform of hexokinase, which catalyzes the transfer of a phosphate group from ATP to glucose to form glucose-6-phosphate.
Hold on, isn't fructose bad for the liver? Well, when you achieve abnormally high fructose infusion rates by simply injecting a fructose solution in animals or people this may in fact lead to hepatic ATP depletion in response to the very quick transfer of its phosphate group to form fructose-1-phosphate. This energy loss will than induce detrimental changes in the energy status of the organ and have detrimental effects on your metabolism. However, severe ATP depletion is likely an artifact of fructose infusion. Hepatic ATP loss is minimal and transient after rats ate substantial fructose, enough to raise fructose-1-phosphate from 0.1 to 3.3 μmol/g wet wt (Niewoehner. 1984 & 1986).
Or, put simply: Fructose controls / increases the storage of glycogen in the liver. Since the glycogen stores in the liver are limited, it should yet be obvious that the beneficial effects of fructose on glucose metabolism fail, when the hepatic glycogen stores are as topped off as they are in the average sedentary Western glutton on 365 days of the year.

Figure 4: Blood glucose, insulin and GLP-1 levels in response to the ingestion of oral glucose (-x-) 75 g, oral fructose (-+-) 75 g or oral glucose 75 g followed by oral fructose 75 g (-•-) 60 min later (Kong. 1999)
Apropos! Let's talk about the average Western glutton for a moment. In spite of the beneficial effects of fructose in different contexts, his habit of washing down his French fries and burgers with some neat high fructose corn syrup sweetened sodas is certainly not healthy. In the presence of already elevated glucose levels, the ingestion of high amounts of fast absorbing fructose has after all been shown to augment insulin secretion (Kong. 1999); and while this happens in the absence of a further substantial increase in blood glucose, it is still a hallmark feature of beginning insulin resistance.

The data Kong et al. generated in healthy volunteers (Figure 4) does also indicate that fructose, when it is consumed in liquid, fast absorbing form and in amounts you can hardly get from whole foods (75g in a few seconds) will trigger both, a small transient insulin, as well as a GLP-1 (learn more) response, even if it is consumed in the absence of fructose (overall the effect is yet not physiological meaningful).

It is likely that this is at least partly due to direct effects of fructose on the pancreatic islet beta cell, since high concentrations of fructose (10–30 mM) elicit insulin secretion from isolated human and rodent islets. Whether this is solely a result of active fructose uptake, or (also) the interaction of fructose with sweet taste receptors, will still have to be elucidated.

What we do know already is that fructose will influence both the storage (see previous paragraph) and oxidation of glucose.
What does the latest review say? The latest meta-analysis and review of the literature on "Fructose, high-fructose corn syrup, sucrose, and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease or indexes of liver health" says "the apparent association between indexes of liver health (ie, liver fat, hepatic de novo lipogenesis, alanine aminotransferase, AST, and γ-glutamyl transpeptase) and fructose or sucrose intake appear to be confounded by excessive energy intake" (Chung. 2014) and does therefore highlight one of the important confounding factors discussed in this article.
In people during cycling exercise, for example, the combustion of ingested carbohydrate is 55% higher when fructose was present with glucose in a 1:2 ratio vs.glucose alone (see Table 1; Jentjens. 2005).
Table 1: Oxygen uptake, respiratory exchange ratio, total carbohydrate oxidation, total fat oxidation,
endogenous carbohydrate oxidation, and exogenous glucose and fructose oxidation during
the 60- to 120-min period of exercise (Jentjens. 2005)
Whether that's advantageous for cyclists is debatable, though. If we assume they are constantly replenishing their glucose levels via oral supplementation during the race, the answer is "yes"; if we assume they fail to do so, a reduced glucose and increased fatty acid oxidation would be more favorable.

Needless to say, that the previously mentioned increase in lactate production and its usages as a substrate for gluconeogenesis contributes to a large extend to the increase in glucose oxidation (Lecoultre. 2010). Against that background it's yet somewhat surprising that fructose-specific GLUT5 is the second most abundant sugar transporter in human skeletal muscle, with expression levels of about a third of that of the major transporter GLUT4.

High potential fructose uptake in those muscles, strength trainees love the most!

In that, it's even more surprising that it's not the the oxidative red fibers (type I) which tend to be particularly rich in GLUT4 and GLUT12 (the third most abundant sugar transporter) which express the majority of GLUT5 transporters, but rather the extremely "fast twitch" Type IIb (Stuart. 2006).

And in fact, skeletal muscle has the ability to metabolize considerable fructose when plasma fructose is highly elevated, although it is not clear whether fructose is oxidized directly in muscle at the plasma levels found after a fructose-rich meal, we do know hat young healthy fasted men exercised on a bicycle during continuous infusion of fructose will use the fructose preferentially as muscle, not liver fuwl (fructose uptake during exercise (4.7 mmol/min) exceeded splanchnic uptake (3.8 mmol/min); cf. Ahlborg, 1990).
Table 2: Regional disposal of infused fructose at 90 min of exercise and 20 min of recovery
Interestingly, the use of fructose to fuel the muscle had no effect on the utilization of glucose during the workout and would thus have to be considered as either extra-fuel of fat replacement - since the oxygen uptake (not shown in Table 2) was identical, the second option does yet sound unlikely.

What needs to be mentioned, though, is that the available data only confirms that These human skeletal muscle can directly metabolize fructose when plasma levels and energy demand are both high. In the average Westerner, it's yet usually only the former, i.e. high plasma levels, but not the latter, i.e. high energy demands, so that most of the obviously beneficial effects of glucose mentioned before won't even occur in the sedentary couch potato.

Apropos couch potatoes, let's not forget the negative potential of fructose

While recent in vitro studies show that high concentrations of fructose may be involved in the maturation of pre-adipocytes to "grown up" fat cells, evidence that similar effects could occur in vivo is not available yet. However, even at lower levels, which mimic those found in the venous circulation following a fructose-rich meal (0.05–0.55 mM), fructose will potentiate adipogenesis and increase lipid stores in 3T3-L1 cells - albeit only in the presence of hyperglycemic concentrations of glucose. Therefore, physiological levels of fructose and glucose together can accelerate the expansion of body fat and contribute to the storage of carbohydrates in the adipose organ.

It does thus appear realistic to assume that any form of fructose + glucose over-consumption, which is - as pointed out before - feasible only via processed foods, will abolish the beneficial effects that occur in the lean whole foods eating active individual and trigger all those nasty obesogenic pro-diabetic effects you will read about on the Internet on a daily basis.
Suggested read: "What's Worse for Your Body Composition & Liver Health? 10g of Sugar from Coke or the Same 10g From Cookies? Plus: Liquid Sucrose is Harder on the Liver Than Fructose" | read more
Bottom line: I am well aware that today's SuppVersity article lacks the popular hyperbole that is so characteristic of the debate about fructose and sugar in general. The fact that you still made it do the bottom line does yet tell me that you appreciate this diversion.

I am not sure if the information changed your stance on fructose, but I hope that it lessened your (unwarranted fear) of the comparatively small amount of fructose in fruits and other whole foods that have falsely been lumped together with processed sugar-sweetened foods in the debate about the ill health effects of fructose and sugar in general.
Reference: 
  • Ahlborg, Gunvor, And O. L. A. Bjijrkman. "Splanchnic And Muscle Fructose Metabolism During And After Exercise." Work 100.3021 (1990): 28-32.
  • Chung M, Ma J, Patel K, Berger S, Lau J, Lichtenstein AH. "Fructose, high-fructose corn syrup, sucrose, and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease or indexes of liver health: a systematic review and meta-analysis." Am J Clin Nutr. (2014) [Ahead of print]
  • Coss-Bu, Jorge A., Agneta L. Sunehag, and Morey W. Haymond. "Contribution of galactose and fructose to glucose homeostasis." Metabolism 58.8 (2009): 1050-1058.
  • Delarue, J., et al. "The contribution of naturally labelled 13C fructose to glucose appearance in humans." Diabetologia 36.4 (1993): 338-345.
  • Hooshmand S, Holloway B, Nemoseck T, Cole S, Petrisko Y, Hong MY, Kern M. "Effects of Agave Nectar Versus Sucrose on Weight Gain, Adiposity, Blood Glucose, Insulin, and Lipid Responses in Mice." J Med Food (2014).
  • Ishimoto, Takuji, et al. "Opposing effects of fructokinase C and A isoforms on fructose-induced metabolic syndrome in mice." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109.11 (2012): 4320-4325. 
  • Jentjens, Roy LPG, et al. "Oxidation of combined ingestion of glucose and fructose during exercise." Journal of Applied Physiology 96.4 (2004): 1277-1284.
  • Kong, Marie-France, et al. "Effects of oral fructose and glucose on plasma GLP-1 and appetite in normal subjects." Peptides 20.5 (1999): 545-551.
  • Latulippe, Marie E., and Suzanne M. Skoog. "Fructose malabsorption and intolerance: effects of fructose with and without simultaneous glucose ingestion." Critical reviews in food science and nutrition 51.7 (2011): 583-592. 
  • Laughlin, Maren R. "Normal Roles for Dietary Fructose in Carbohydrate Metabolism." Nutrients 6.8 (2014): 3117-3129.
  • Le, MyPhuong T., et al. "Effects of high-fructose corn syrup and sucrose on the pharmacokinetics of fructose and acute metabolic and hemodynamic responses in healthy subjects." Metabolism 61.5 (2012): 641-651.
  • Lecoultre, Virgile, et al. "Fructose and glucose co-ingestion during prolonged exercise increases lactate and glucose fluxes and oxidation compared with an equimolar intake of glucose." The American journal of clinical nutrition 92.5 (2010): 1071-1079.
  • Moore, M.C.; Cherrington, A.D.; Mann, S.L. "Davis, S.N. Acute fructose administration deceases the glycemic response to an oral glucose tolerance testin normal adults." J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab. 85 (2000):4515–4519.
  • Moore, M.C.; Mann, S.L.; Davis, S.N.; Cherrington, A.D. "Acute fructose administration improves oral glucose tolerance in adults with type 2 diabetes". Diabetes Care 24 (2001):1882–1887. 
  • Nemoseck TM, Carmody EG, Furchner-Evanson A, Gleason M, Li A, Potter H, Rezende LM, Lane KJ, Kern M. "Honey promotes lower weight gain, adiposity, and triglycerides than sucrose in rats." Nutr Res. 31,1 (2011):55-60.
  • Niewoehner, Catherine. B., et al. "Metabolic effects of oral fructose in the liver of fasted rats." Am. J. Physiol 247 (1984): E505-E512.
  • Niewoehner, Catherine B. "Metabolic effects of dietary versus parenteral fructose." Journal of the American College of Nutrition 5.5 (1986): 443-450.
  • Stuart, Charles A., et al. "Hexose transporter mRNAs for GLUT4, GLUT5, and GLUT12 predominate in human muscle." American Journal of Physiology-Endocrinology and Metabolism 291.5 (2006): E1067-E1073.
  • Stuart, Charles A., et al. "Cycle Training Increased GLUT4 and Activation of mTOR in Fast Twitch Muscle Fibers." Medicine and science in sports and exercise 42.1 (2010): 96.
  • Walker RW, Dumke KA, Goran MI. "Fructose content in popular beverages made with and without high-fructose corn syrup." Nutrition 30, 7-8 (2014):928-35.

6x Bananas a Day!? Meta-Analysis: Lower Glucose, Insulin and HbA1c Levels From 'Catalytic' Dose of 36g Fructose

Figure 1: At least according to the USDA data, the average US citizen did never in the last 40 years get even close to the "catalytic" dose of fructose - at least not if we go by his / her daily HFCS consumption.
I usually don't start these articles with a disclaimer, but in this case I want to make sure that this post is not misinterpreted as a corn-refiners advertisement (and contrary to one of the authors of the Sievenpiper study, Coca Cola has unfortunately as of yet never covered my travel expenses ;-)... anyways, whenever the word "fructose" is used in the following lines it to the simple monosaccharide found as part of a complex nutrient matrix in many plants and their fruits (who would have expected that?). It is not used to denote the controversial results of a three-step enzymatic isolation process (Cornstarch → alpha-amylase → oligosaccharides + glucoamylase →  glucose + xylose isomerase →  42% fructose + 50–52% glucose + other sugar; cf. Wikipedia. "High Fructose Corn Syrup") that's at the heart of a very emotional debate about who would be to blame for the current obesity epidemic, now that the bad fats are no longer bad enough to be the scapegoat and ultima ratio for why we get fat.

Junk food is more than HFCS and fruit is more than fructose!

Fortunately, you, as a "whole food eating" SuppVersity reader, don't really have to care about the whole HFCS business. With your minimal intake of processed foods, your exposure to high fructose corn syrup should ideally be identical to the one of the parents and grandparents of America's obese children in the flower power seventies (~0.1-1g, see figure 1); a time, when your parents would not tell you to "beware of high fructose corn syrup", but to stay away from "those hairy, drug-addicted, reprobate hippies next door". Against that background, today's SuppVersity article is to be understood as an incentive to rethink, whether or not it is really necessary, let alone beneficial to deprive yourself of a whole class of vitamin and micronutrient-laden foods, simply because they contain a small number of molecules of which you are told that they "must not to be eaten, if you want to stay lean & healthy".

To help your thought process along, I have compiled the data from a recently published meta-analysis (that's a study, the results of which are based on data from multiple previous trials, which was weighed and compiled to come up with "new" data with a larger empirical foundation and thus greater significance). And I am honestly curious whether or not the evidence Sievenpiper and his colleagues presented in favor of the existence of a"catalytic dose" of  ≤36g/day of fructose that's been shown to improve, not compromise, blood glucose, insulin and HBA1C, when it is consumed instead of 36g of carbs from other sources (the studies in the review used either starches or simple sugars with almost identical beneficial results, by the way) will have catalytic effects on your opinion making process ;-)
Figure 2:  Effect of isoenergetic exchange of "catalytic" fructose doses (≤36g/d) for other carbohydrates (starches or simple sugars) on glycaemic endpoints: HbA1c, fasting blood glucose and fasting blood insulin, data calculated based on analysis of the scarce literature that is currently available (adapted from Sievenpiper. 2012)
The improvements in HbA1C, which is still the gold standard for evaluating long-term blood sugar level, in fasting blood glucose and insulin levels were across the board statistically significant, regardless of whether or not you apply the quality criteria, Sievenpiper and his colleagues used to weigh the results of the individual studies (cf. figure 2). Accordingly, the authors are right, when they point out that
[...] this small meta-analysis of controlled feeding trials supports earlier13C NMR spectroscopy investigations and acute feeding studies showing that ‘catalytic’ doses (≤36g/d) of fructose may improve glycaemic control [and that this] benefit is seen without the adverse cardiometabolic effects reported when fructose is fed at high doses or as excessenergy. (Sievenpiper. 2012)
Based on the data in figure 1, which clearly shows that the "average American" does not and never did pass this "catalytic threshold level" it may - at first sight appear odd that 42% of your countrymen and -women are supposed to be obese by the year 2030 (Hellmich. 2012)... at least for so long until you realize that for every American who follows your lead and consumes virtually no HFCS, there must be another one who consumes this person's 43.3g of HFCS on top of his own 43.3g of HFCS on a daily basis and would thus easily surpass the "scientifically proven" catalytic threshold levels which was (and I leave it up to you to decide whether this is coincidence or not) in none of the studies achieved from HFCS intake, by the way (I guess I don't have to tell you that my calculation is of mere illustrative nature, despite the fact that the 43.3g /day HFCS intake are actually from the USDA dataset for 2010).

Bad news for the guy who eats / drinks your daily share of 43.3g of high fructose corn syrup, ...

...but what does that mean for you? As long as your only significant fructose source are whole fruits and the few vegetables that contain more than trace amounts of fructose, you can answer this question by taking a look at the data in figure 3. The small figures on top of the bars will tell you how many 100g servings of apples, dates, pears or tomatoes you can consume until you hit the catalytic limit*uhuhhh...*: 3.9x 100g servings, of apples, for examples, or 5x 100g servings of bananas, or a whopping 32.7x 100g servings of lemons... sounds plenty? Well, I don't know, but certainly plenty enough to finally stop worrying when Adelfo Cerame would not ruin his health, let alone his physique, when he eats a banana along with his postworkout shake, wouldn't you agree?
Figure 3: Number of 100g servings of various common fruits to get to the more or less arbitrary  ≤36g/day threshold.
Notwithstanding, this ≤36g/day limit does certainly appears more or less arbitrary. This is all the more true in face of previous results by Livesey & Taylor, who could not find evidence that such a thing as a "threshold dosage" for the Hb1AC improving effects of fructose even exists (Livesey. 2008) or the fact that a "low-GI fruit intake [and not the number of servings of fiber-laden cereals!] was the strongest independent predictor of [lowered] HbA1c" in a 2011 6-months low-GI diet experiment by Jenkins et al. who compared Kellog's... ah, pardon me, I meant the medical orthodoxy's gold standard, the high-cereal fiber diet in 152 participants with type 2 diabetes with a simple low-GI diet (Jenkins. 2011).

Can ≤35g of fructose per day really be the answer to everything?

Though the main reason for the arbitrariness of the 36g limit certainly is the scarcity of valid experimental data from well-controlled human trials, Sievenpieper et al. claim that their reference for the "catalytic range" was in accordance with "an emerging literature" that "has shown that low-dose fructose (≤10g/meal) may benefit glycaemic control".

Now, those of you who have read my "Carbohydrate Shortage in Paleo Land" post from back in June 2011, will probably remember that from a mere physiological point of view every healthy (=nondiabetic and with an intact liver) human being, including the tiniest woman, should be able to handle a minimum of ~100g of carbohydrates on a daily basis. If we now take the 2:1 glucose to fructose ratio, of which Walliset al. found that it is just as effective in repleting muscle gylcogen stores after a workout as the same amount (90g) of pure glucose, and apply it to the 36g fructose threshold this yields a "total carbohydrate threshold" of 108g - coincidence or physiological necessity?

And even when you didn't replace some of the starches or other simple sugars for your daily dose of 2kg of apples (another example of exclusively illustrative nature), you would maybe get fatter, but according to the results of Silbernagel et al. not a single gram fatter than from the same amounts of calories from glucose from fructose or glucose conducted with healthy young men; cf. Silbernagel. 2011).

You can have another apple today and will still (or rather hence?) live tomorrow ;-)

Image 3 (edited in response to anon & JP, thx!): Certainly impressive what lifelong caloric restriction did to the 27.6 year-old ape on the right, if you take a look at his wrinkled age-mate on the left, no? Suggested read: "Health and Longevity Effects of Intermittent Fasting"
Overall it does therefore seem more than unlikely that a healthy, non-sedentary or even athletic individual has to worry about eating another apple, when he or she already reached their purported catalytic limit of 36g with the pound of blackberries, two bananas and a huge grapefruit this person could have eaten earlier in the day.

Moreover, skipping on the apple would also mean that you would miss out on its recently confirmed life-extending effects (+130% in yeast; Palermo. 2012), of which Vanessa Palermo and her colleagues from the Dept. of  Biology and Biotechnology “Charles Darwin” have shown that they are the prerogative of the whole fruit and not a result of the high antioxidant or polyphenol content of apples, as they occurred only, when the yeast is treated with a handcrafted extract that had approximately 26.7 g/100ml of fresh apple in it... and guess what, that apple, Golden Delicicious, happens to be one of my personal favorites, taste-wise, or course ;-)
Bottom line: I know it is more than questionable to which extend (1:20, 1:100, not at all?) the lastly cited life-prolonging effects of whole apples can be extrapolated to human beings, but that does neither diminish the perplexing results of Sivenpiper's meta-analysis nor long-established cancer protective effects of fruits in general and apples in particular (eg.  Veeriah. 2006;  McCann. 2007; Yoon, 2007; Gerhauser. 2008; Zessner. 2008; Jedrychowsk. 2009; Liu. 2010; Reagan-Shaw. 2010) and should therefore suffice to put more than a non-legible font-size "1" questionmark behind any previously taken decision of yours that it would be better to deprive yourself of these delicious superfoods (=fruits) than trust on your livers ability to to what she has evolved to do and turn the slow influx of relatively low amounts of fructose and glucose into energy and deliver the rest of the vitamins, polyphenols, and other micronutrients via the bloodstream to other organs.
References:
  • Gerhauser C. Cancer chemopreventive potential of apples, apple juice, and apple components. Planta Med. 2008 Oct;74(13):1608-24. Epub 2008 Oct 14. Review. 
  • Hellmich J. Obesity could affect 42% of Americans by 2030. USA TODAY. Aug 05, 2012 < http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/story/2012-05-07/obesity-projections-adults/54791430/1 > accessed Aug 07, 2012
  • Jandrain BJ, Pallikarakis N, Normand S, Pirnay F, Lacroix M, Mosora F, Pachiaudi C, Gautier JF, Scheen AJ, Riou JP, et al. Fructose utilization during exercise in men: rapid conversion of ingested fructose to circulating glucose. J Appl Physiol. 1993 May;74(5):2146-54.
  • Jedrychowski W, Maugeri U. An apple a day may hold colorectal cancer at bay: recent evidence from a case-control study. Rev Environ Health. 2009
  • Jenkins DJ, Srichaikul K, Kendall CW, Sievenpiper JL, Abdulnour S, Mirrahimi A, Meneses C, Nishi S, He X, Lee S, So YT, Esfahani A, Mitchell S, Parker TL, Vidgen E, Josse RG, Leiter LA. The relation of low glycaemic index fruit consumption to glycaemic control and risk factors for coronary heart disease in type 2 diabetes. Diabetologia. 2011 Feb;54(2):271-9. 
  • Livesey G, Taylor R. Fructose consumption and consequences for glycation, plasma triacylglycerol, and body weight: meta-analyses and meta-regression models of intervention studies. Am J Clin Nutr. 2008; 88, 1419–1437. 
  • Liu L, Li YH, Niu YB, Sun Y, Guo ZJ, Li Q, Li C, Feng J, Cao SS, Mei QB. An  apple oligogalactan prevents against inflammation and carcinogenesis by targeting LPS/TLR4/NF-κB pathway in a mouse model of colitis-associated colon cancer. Carcinogenesis. 2010 Oct;31(10):1822-32. 
  • McCann MJ, Gill CI, O' Brien G, Rao JR, McRoberts WC, Hughes P, McEntee R,  Rowland IR. Anti-cancer properties of phenolics from apple waste on colon carcinogenesis in vitro. Food Chem Toxicol. 2007 Jul;45(7):1224-30. 
  • Reagan-Shaw S, Eggert D, Mukhtar H, Ahmad N. Antiproliferative effects of apple peel extract against cancer cells. Nutr Cancer. 2010;62(4):517-24. 
  • Palermo V, Mattiv, F, Silvestri R, La  Regina G, Falcone CM. Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity. 2012 [Article in press]
  • Sievenpiper JL, Chiavaroli L, de Souza RJ, Mirrahimi A, Cozma AI, Ha V, Wang DD, Yu ME, Carleton AJ, Beyene J, Di Buono M, Jenkins AL, Leiter LA, Wolever TM, Kendall CW, Jenkins DJ. 'Catalytic' doses of fructose may benefit glycaemic control without harming cardiometabolic risk factors: a small meta-analysis of randomised controlled feeding trials. Br J Nutr. 2012 Aug;108(3):418-23.
  • Silbernagel G, Machann J, Unmuth S, Schick F, Stefan N, Häring HU, Fritsche A.Effects of 4-week very-high-fructose/glucose diets on insulin sensitivity, visceral fat and intrahepatic lipids: an exploratory trial. Br J Nutr. 2011 Jul;106(1):79-86. 
  • Veeriah S, Kautenburger T, Habermann N, Sauer J, Dietrich H, Will F, Pool-Zobel BL. Apple flavonoids inhibit growth of HT29 human colon cancer cells and modulate expression of genes involved in the biotransformation of xenobiotics. Mol Carcinog. 2006 Mar;45(3):164-74. 
  • Wallis GA, Hulston CJ, Mann CH, Roper HP, Tipton KD, Jeukendrup AE. Postexercise muscle glycogen synthesis with combined glucose and fructose ingestion. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2008 Oct;40(10):1789-94.
  • Wikipedia contributors, "High-fructose corn syrup," Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, < http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=High-fructose_corn_syrup&oldid=505539604 > accessed August 7, 2012. 
  • Yoon H, Liu RH. Effect of selected phytochemicals and apple extracts on  NF-kappaB activation in human breast cancer MCF-7 cells. J Agric Food Chem. 2007  Apr 18;55(8):3167-73. Epub 2007 Mar 21.
  • Zessner H, Pan L, Will F, Klimo K, Knauft J, Niewöhner R, Hümmer W, Owen R,  Richling E, Frank N, Schreier P, Becker H, Gerhauser C. Fractionation of polyphenol-enriched apple juice extracts to identify constituents with cancer chemopreventive potential. Mol Nutr Food Res. 2008 Jun;52 Suppl 1:S28-44.

What's Worse for Your Body Composition & Liver Health? 10g of Sugar from Coke or the Same 10g From Cookies? Plus: Liquid Sucrose is Harder on the Liver Than Fructose

Hard do believe, but the 10g from coke may actually do more harm than the same amount from cookies.
If you want to scare me away from a discussion about the "fat problems" the US and large parts of Europe are struggling with, you just have to repeat Taubs'ian statements such as "if we had not eaten carbohydrates all the mess wouldn't have happened."

It's certainly true that the exorbitant and mislead carbohydrate intake and the psyochological consequences ("Fat is bad, isn't it?") of the "low fat" decades from the 1970-1990s is part of the problem, but when we look closer, it's not as simple as to say "we don't eat enough fat".

As Yvonne Ritze and her colleagues from the University of Hohenheim, the Technische Universität München, and the Interdisciplinary Obesity Center in Rorschach (Switzerland) write in their latest paper in PLoS One, it's rather the unhealthy conglomerate of "changes in dietary and eating behavior such as preferring sugar-sweetened beverages and sugar-rich processed food, in addition to a sedentary life style", which is to blame form the "sharp rise in obesity" (Ritze. 2014).
Learn more about alternatives to sugar sweetened beverages at the SuppVersity

Unsatiating Truth About Sweeteners?

Will Artificial Sweeteners Spike Insulin?

Sweeteners & the Gut Microbiome Each is Diff.

Sweeter Than Your Tongue Allows!

Stevia, Much More Than Sweet?

Artif. Sweetened Foods Good, Not Bad for Fat Loss.
In said paper, Ritze and her colleagues present data from rodent and human experiments they conducted which highlight the fact the "form of sugar intake (liquid versus solid) is presumably more important than the type of sugar" (Ritze. 2014), when it comes to its ability to disturb our appetite regulation, increase the fat accumulation in the liver and promote the development of type II diabetes.

In mice, Ritze et al. observe a liquid high-sucrose diet caused an enhancement of total caloric intake which was not comparable to the effects the solid variety of the high sucrose diet had.
Figure 1: Diet (left) and energy (right) intake in the five diet groups (Ritze. 2014)
Over the course of the experiment (8 weeks), the female C57BL/6 mice (Janvier, Saint Berthevin Cedex, France) had been feed on one out of the following five ad-libitum (=eat as much as you want to) diets:
  • Group 1 (controls, C) received water and mouse breeding (MZ)-diet (standard diet from Sniff, Soest, Germany) containing 10% (g/g) sugars. 
  • Groups 2 (fructose liquid, Fl) and 3 (sucrose liquid, Sl) received water supplemented with fructose or sucrose at 30% (vol/vol), respectively, and enriched MZ-diet to compensate for reduced food uptake. 
  • Groups 4 (fructose solid, Fs) and 5 (sucrose solid, Ss) received water and the high-fructose or -sucrose diet containing 65% (g/g) sugars, which equals the sugar amount per day that mice ingested when offered sugar water at 30%. 
Every two weeks the mice were placed in metabolic cages for 24 h, to which they had been acclimatized before. The mice were weighed, their food intake and feces analyzed and their body composition quantified; and what the scientists found was:
  1. The sugar intake in groups 2-4 was significantly higher than in group 1 - obviously a simple and necessary consequence of the composition of the diet
  2. The mice on the liquid diets consumed significantly more energy, sugar, liquid and food - distinct evidence that the rodent equivalent of sugar-sweetened beverages leads to overeating
  3. The fructose diets were not by any means worse than the sucrose diets - an observation that confirms what I have been preaching to the choir: The fructose bashing as "lustig" (engl. "funny") as some experts believe it was, is based on a shortsighted prejudice
  4. The weight increase in the solid high-sucrose groups was small compared to that of the mice in groups 2 & 3 who were fed sucrose or fructose in their water - this is the logical consequence of the increased energy intake
  5. When the scientists compared the obesogenic effects (weight gain per food intake) of the diets, they found a significant difference between the liquid and solid sugars but not the sugar types - more evidence we cannot simply blame everything on fructose
  6. Interestingly, all four high sugar-diets caused an increase in blood glucose and in tendency some increase in liver weight, which was more pronounced if the sugars were administered in solid form.
In addition, Ritze et al. found a strong increase in GLUT2 mRNA expression (Fl = about 90 fold;  P < 0.001; Sl = about 160 fold; P < 0.001) when sugars were dissolved in drinking water compared to the control mice - again more pronounced in the sucrose vs. fructose group. Compared to the 90x & 160x increase in the liquid groups, the likewise significan increase of ileal GLUT2 mRNA expression (P < 0.05) in the solid high sugar groups 4 & 5 was almost negligible.
"Similar results were obtained for GLUT5 mRNA expression. Comparing sugar form and type we showed a significant difference between liquid and solid sugar form for GLUT2 and GLUT5 (P < 0.001) as well as a significant difference of sugar type (fructose versus sucrose) for GLUT5 (P < 0.05) within the different dietetic groups." (Ritze. 2014)
Whether these difference in glucose transporter activity are actually relevant (they would simply speed up the uptake of glucose / fructose) is questionable.

Is absorption speed all that matters?

Figure 2: Suspiciously similar changes in glut-2 & 5 expression in the two groups fed liquid diets (top) and obese vs. lean human (bottom)
The fact that Ritze et al. observed them when they compared the GLUT2 and GLUT5 expression in obese and lean human subjects, as well, is yet quite telling. In the end, it may thus in fact all be about "speed" and the question "How fast is the sugar trickling into your body?"

Whether the speed of the sugar influx is also responsible for the slightly up-regulated ghrelin mRNA levels in mice who were fed the liquid diet compared to the solid diet (P < 0.05) is something, I cannot tell. What I can tell you though is that (a) elevated or rather not appropriately reduced ghrelin levels after a meal are characteristic of obese vs. lean humans, too (Le Roux. 2005) and that (b) there was once again no difference between fructose and sucrose diet.
Did you ever notice that none of the "fructose is bad studies" was conducted with a solid diet? The fructose was always provided on top of a solid diet with the liquid, just like the the surcose and fructose in the diet at hand. And if we are honest, it does not look like fructose was by any means significantly worse than simple sugar (which obviously is a 1:1 glucose : fructose mixture).
Figure 3: Effect of high-sugar diets on hepatic lipid accumulation. Concentrations of triglycerides in the liver (A), and liver to body ratio (B) were detected. Portal endotoxin (C), and Oil Red O staining showing fat accumulation in the liver (D) are shown
Now, what certainly comes as a surprise is the fact that it's not the liquid fructose group which had the highest liver fat concentrations, but rather the group that received the equivalent of sugar (=sucrose) sweetened beverages in their diets (see Figure 3, A). Accordingly, the Oil Red O staining in Figure 3, D is most significant in the Sl (=sucrose liquid) diet group.

The endotoxin concentration in the portal vein (see Figure 3, C), on the other hand, are the highest (yet not significantly elevated!) in the fructose groups. In conjunction with the relatively low triglyceride levels in the liver this goes against a theory by Bergheim et al. which revolves around the idea that fructose induced changes in the gut microbiome would lead to an increased endotoximia (this is true) and consequent fatty liver disease (this is at least less severe that with sucrose in the study at hand).
Bottom line: Let's get away from the "fructose vs. the rest of the world" discussion and focus on those "foods" that contain significant amounts of fructose. If you click on "foods highest in fructose" on nutritiondata.com, you will obviously find "pops, sodas, and soft drinks" on the first three ranks. And while they do have a high fructose concentration (29.8g per 200ml serving), the study at hand should remind you of another thing they have in common... ha? Yeah! Right, they are liquid fast absorbing and a real stressor for your liver.

Figure 4: Replacing SSBs or juices with water or artificially sweetened beverages has identical beneficial effects on the weight trajectory of adults (Pan. 2013) - Even low fat milk would have you gain less body weight!
I am far from suggesting that after blaming fructose for everything, we should now start blaming liquid foods for everything, but the results Ritze et al. present in their latest paper do in fact "provide evidence that liquid versus solid high-sugar diets differentially modulate feeding behavior, distinct intestinal sugar transporters and weight regulating hormones" and may thus be "a critical component for the development of obesity and fatty liver disease", not just in mice, but also in humans, where Ritze et al. found "similar enhanced sugar transporter regulation within the small intestine as in liquid high-sugar diet fed mice" and previous studies suggest that simply replacing energy containing drinks with water will inhibit or at least slow down long-term weight gain (Pan. 2013)
Reference:
  • Bergheim, Ina, et al. "Antibiotics protect against fructose-induced hepatic lipid accumulation in mice: role of endotoxin." Journal of hepatology 48.6 (2008): 983-992. 
  • Le Roux, C. W., et al. "Postprandial plasma ghrelin is suppressed proportional to meal calorie content in normal-weight but not obese subjects." The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism 90.2 (2005): 1068-1071. 
  • Pan, An, et al. "Changes in water and beverage intake and long-term weight changes: results from three prospective cohort studies." International journal of obesity 37.10 (2013): 1378-1385. 
  • Ritze, Yvonne, et al. "Effect of High Sugar Intake on Glucose Transporter and Weight Regulating Hormones in Mice and Humans." PloS one 9.7 (2014): e101702.