Fructose is a toxin

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 18, 2010 1:34 AM GMT


    Not going to lie, at an hour and a half, this is a long ass video. However, it is very interesting and, although most of us already know how bad high fructose corn syrup is, he really goes into depth to explain why and just how bad fructose is for you. Having trouble losing weight even though you're keeping your calories in check? This video may help.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 18, 2010 3:52 AM GMT
    if he smacks his lips one more time.... Okay i'm going to throttle him now.

    (trying to watch this, for some horrible reason i find it interesting but that smacking.. oh. my. gosh. )
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 18, 2010 3:56 AM GMT
    I'm not a huge fan of statements along the lines of "X food is wholeheartedly BAD", but it's pretty much safe to say monosaccharides (simple sugars) have no place in anyone's diet (save for maybe in cases when a high endurance athlete or diabetic have a debilitating and threatening blood sugar crash).
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 18, 2010 9:09 AM GMT
    I've always said High Fructose Corn Syrup is poison...my friends and co-workers think I'm crazy.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 18, 2010 9:27 AM GMT
    Of course it is sweetie...

    but then everything is...the LD50(dose required to kill 50% of a population of rat) for most sugars is 1292 mg/kg...

    So unless you plan on eating more than your body weight of pure fructose....I think your safe...

    A whole world of idiots are out there searching for the one magic posion bullet in their diets......

    When the truth of the matter is likely to be what causes metabolic syndrome X in order of importance...

    1. Their appealing lack of exercise
    2. Complete and total over consumption
    3. The overall eating philosophy "bulking out" of food sources with high energy cheap carbohydrates and fats, feeding children the worst quality foods, elimination of fresh foods etc
    4. Any one particular ingredient

    So what we have is a 400 fattie confined to an arm chair, multiple chins moving up and down as they eat snack food all day saying "It's not my fault I'm a whale...It's the trans fats and HFCS a corporation somewhere put in my food to kill me"
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 18, 2010 9:57 AM GMT
    I fully agree with you Drew,

    too much of one thing is never good. with proper variation in your diet, and enough exercise, you can allow yourself to eat just about anything (in moderation)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 18, 2010 9:58 AM GMT
    MsclDrew saidOf course it is sweetie...

    but then everything is...the LD50(dose required to kill 50% of a population of rat) for most sugars is 1292 mg/kg...

    So unless you plan on eating more than your body weight of pure fructose....I think your safe...

    A whole world of idiots are out there searching for the one magic posion bullet in their diets......

    When the truth of the matter is likely to be what causes metabolic syndrome X in order of importance...

    1. Their appealing lack of exercise
    2. Complete and total over consumption
    3. The overall eating philosophy "bulking out" of food sources with high energy cheap carbohydrates and fats, feeding children the worst quality foods, elimination of fresh foods etc
    4. Any one particular ingredient

    So what we have is a 400 fattie confined to an arm chair, multiple chins moving up and down as they eat snack food all day saying "It's not my fault I'm a whale...It's the trans fats and HFCS a corporation somewhere put in my food to kill me"


    Reading your response, I'm pretty sure you didn't watch the video, which I think you should. Although fructose is not a toxin that someone will likely die from acutely (according to your LD50, we'd have to eat more than our weight in sugar for it to kill us), we eat WAY more of it now than humans ever did in history and the accumulation of it throughout our lives is very detrimental to our health. He shows biochemically how similar fructose metabolism is to ethanol metabolism, yet the FDA won't regulate it because, unlike ethanol, fructose is metabolized in the liver, not the brain.

    While I do agree with your point that there are people who chose to be fat, he also shows in the video that infants are getting fatter, and I don't think that's of their choosing. After watching the video I believe that this really is a problem that the government should step in to regulate because the general public is ignorant or just stupid. He shows a baby formula that has basically the same sugar content as Coca-Cola; do you think that most mothers are going to pay attention to this? Probably not.
  • t0theheights

    Posts: 428

    Apr 18, 2010 10:20 AM GMT
    MsclDrew saidOf course it is sweetie...

    but then everything is...the LD50(dose required to kill 50% of a population of rat) for most sugars is 1292 mg/kg...

    So unless you plan on eating more than your body weight of pure fructose....I think your safe...

    A whole world of idiots are out there searching for the one magic posion bullet in their diets......

    When the truth of the matter is likely to be what causes metabolic syndrome X in order of importance...

    1. Their appealing lack of exercise
    2. Complete and total over consumption
    3. The overall eating philosophy "bulking out" of food sources with high energy cheap carbohydrates and fats, feeding children the worst quality foods, elimination of fresh foods etc
    4. Any one particular ingredient

    So what we have is a 400 fattie confined to an arm chair, multiple chins moving up and down as they eat snack food all day saying "It's not my fault I'm a whale...It's the trans fats and HFCS a corporation somewhere put in my food to kill me"


    You clearly didn't watch the video, nor do you know the facts about how dangerous HFCS is. Please don't open your mouth when you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

    HFCS and transfat should be banned from all food, period.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 18, 2010 10:29 AM GMT
    What, what what........

    Okay biochem lesson here

    1. Fructose is metabolised to fructose 1,6 bisphosphate, cleaved to Diacyl-glycerol and glyeraldehyde 3 phosphate converted to pyruvate and acetyl-COA where it is metabolized to H20 and CO2 via TCA cycle. It does not and can not accumulate in our bodies

    2. it's not in any way metabolized similar to alcohol. Different tissues and enzymes. The end product is acetyl CoA. The same breakdown product for all carbohydrate and fats in your diet. So it's evident he's exploiting a basic biochemical fact to create paranoia Besides when it comes to the toxic effects of alcohol end products are not the issue Alcohol is only damaging in alcohol form.

    3. of course baby food contains as much sugar as coke....so do most fruit juices and breast milk. "sugar" is not a bad thing a baby has a different stomach chemistry to a child they are required to absorb immunoglobulin proteins whole from the mother during the first few months. So they can't breakdown fats, or large peptides. Like it or not a baby need sugar for energy, to double it's weight every 3 months for the first year

    The man is using junk science to push an agenda and no I don't have time to watch an hour and a half of junk science

    And people don't choose to be fat... they disregard their personal responsibility for being fat, prefering to seek someone else to blame they are different




  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 18, 2010 10:57 AM GMT
    MsclDrew saidWhat, what what........

    Okay biochem lesson here

    1. Fructose is metabolised to fructose 1,6 bisphosphate, cleaved to Diacyl-glycerol and glyeraldehyde 3 phosphate converted to pyruvate and acetyl-COA where it is metabolized to H20 and CO2 via TCA cycle. It does not and can not accumulate in our bodies

    That's what I learned when I was in biochem as well, however fructose can also play a role in hyperuricemia. Uric acid, of course, being a waste product that, with elevated levels, can go on to promote gout, cardiovascular disease, diabetes and many other problems.

    2. it's not in any way metabolized similar to alcohol. Different tissues and enzymes. The end product is acetyl CoA. The same breakdown product for all carbohydrate and fats in your diet. So it's evident he's exploiting a basic biochemical fact to create paranoia Besides when it comes to the toxic effects of alcohol end products are not the issue Alcohol is only damaging in alcohol form.

    Seriously, just watch the video.

    3. of course baby food contains as much sugar as coke....so do most fruit juices and breast milk. "sugar" is not a bad thing a baby has a different stomach chemistry to a child they are required to absorb immunoglobulin proteins whole from the mother during the first few months. So they can't breakdown fats, or large peptides. Like it or not a baby need sugar for energy, to double it's weight every 3 months for the first year

    But why do these baby formulas need to contain "corn syrup solids?" Not all sugars are the same and if they were to use just glucose, it would be much better for the child

    The man is using junk science to push an agenda and no I don't have time to watch an hour and a half of junk science

    An hour and a half is long, but I didn't even watch it that intently, I just had it on in the background while I did other stuff. Why don't you watch it and then decide if it's really "junk science?"

    And people don't choose to be fat... they disregard their personal responsibility for being fat, prefering to seek someone else to blame they are different

    You say tə-mā'tō, I say tə-mä'tō (wow, that really doesn't work well outside of actually speaking).
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 18, 2010 10:59 AM GMT
    A shorter version of the lecture.

    [url][/url]
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 18, 2010 12:30 PM GMT
    First, there was a REAL study done a while back by MIT on several thousand people. The results of that study found out in large part, that refined sugar was not bad for you. It is absolutely NOT toxic. It contains no nutrients so it is what is often referred to as 'empty calories'. The problem is in the quantity that is consumed as it often is consumed in a way that replaces consumption of foods that are genuinely nutritious.
    Unless you have a functional problem metabolizing sugar (e.g. diabetes) then there is no danger in consuming sugar unless you are consuming sugar in place of foods that are actually nutritious.
    The idea that sugar is toxic is not science, it is simply a political or monetary agenda.
    'Mostly true' or 'sort of true' is not truth in itself. Anyone, whether a Dr. or not can present a load of genuinely scientific evidence to prove a point. The problem comes when analysis reveals the information that they left out that would weaken their argument. A real scientist will try to prove his theory wrong. A Doctor with a book to sell, a commission to make or an agenda to forward will pile on data that supports his argument/theory and dismiss that data which counters it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 18, 2010 1:04 PM GMT
    I have watched a few of these, and it is pretty good stuff. I especially like this lecture on how HFCS is destructive. He breaks it down very well, it was eas(ier) to understand than anything else I have seen.

    So, I guess my take though is moderation. Last night I had two pizza rolls from a deli around the corner and a 8 oz Coca Cola. About once a month. Probably not going to hurt me; its those guys that drink Mountain Dew all day long that are at risk.

    What you really should be careful of is the ingredients in what you buy. 100% of my grocery list has NO HFCS.
  • wave173

    Posts: 45

    Apr 18, 2010 1:31 PM GMT
    It's sad when an endocrinologist is trying to debunk 30 years of nutrition research. He clearly has a hidden agenda and will be trying to promote some new diet fad to make money. When he says to maintain calories in = calories out is incorrect, he loses all credibility. I'm glad I'm a nutritionist that isn't swayed by someone with an agenda and stick to facts based on research.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 18, 2010 1:37 PM GMT
    wave173 saidIt's sad when an endocrinologist is trying to debunk 30 years of nutrition research. He clearly has a hidden agenda and will be trying to promote some new diet fad to make money. When he says to maintain calories in = calories out is incorrect, he loses all credibility. I'm glad I'm a nutritionist that isn't swayed by someone with an agenda and stick to facts based on research.


    Hmm.. what is he trying to push? What is his agenda?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 18, 2010 1:49 PM GMT
    The bitter truth about fructose alarmism

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 18, 2010 4:41 PM GMT
    What a disservice. It's like saying ${diety} is real.

    Common sense has to come into play here. No doubt, many folks eat way too much sugar, in whatever form it is. No doubt, folks are irresponsible on the their relationship with food.

    Context has to be considered in any rational discussion.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 18, 2010 4:52 PM GMT
    wave173 saidIt's sad when an endocrinologist is trying to debunk 30 years of nutrition research. He clearly has a hidden agenda and will be trying to promote some new diet fad to make money. When he says to maintain calories in = calories out is incorrect, he loses all credibility. I'm glad I'm a nutritionist that isn't swayed by someone with an agenda and stick to facts based on research.


    i think the whole point of his lecture is that the last 30 years of nutritional research has had an agenda, namely to allow for cheap and marketable food by claiming that a decrease in fat intake and an increase in sugar levels is a healthy change in diet. He may be pushing an agenda, but his agenda is not so he can sell a new diet or make loads of money, his agenda is to make America a healthier nation.

    I also don't see whats so controversial about his lecture, all he is claiming is that products with elevated fructose levels aren't good for us except when used sparingly. His point is that the human body is not meant to metabolize large amounts of fructose and if it does the result is excess fat as well as other negative side effects. For thousands of years humans could only obtain fructose in small amounts through fruits and whenever fructose was consumed so was fiber (fiber mitigating the damage of fructose). So if we eat naturally fructose and refined sugars dont pose a problem. But that isn't the case. His point is rather simple, soft drinks, high sugar foods, and high sugar juices are bad for us.... I really dont think this is that controversial of a claim.

    and as for the claim that calories in = calories out doesn't work, i think what he is trying to say is that body composition and health cannot be simply determined by the number of calories one consumes. If you have one person eat 2000 calories at mc donalds every day and another person eat 2000 calories of home cooked and non-refined sugar foods every day (keeping all other variables the same) I guarantee you the second person will be much healthier... This should be quite obvious
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 18, 2010 5:08 PM GMT
    To any sane person, it's obvious the high sodium, high fat, high sugar, dog CRAP that is fast food is bad for just about anyone. If a person can't figure that out by how the feel when they eat it, they simply aren't listening to their bodies.

    Given, a smoker doesn't often realize how bad they smell, and how bad their physical performance is (i.e. how sick they are) until they quit smoking, and some of that could be said for ignorant folks who've never been taught how to eat properly, but, if you eat fast food and feel like crap, that should be an indicator.

    A Burger King Triple has 1160 calories, 76 grams of fat, 51 grams of carbs, and 1170 mg of sodium. The carbs aren't so bad, but, the fat and the sodium, are over the top. Now, if you drink a sweetened soft drink with it, you slam yourself with sugar, and a buttload more sodium. Dumb.

    The issue isn't so much the type of sugar as much as the speed (the glyclemic index) that the sugar breaks down. Faster sugar causes more insulin response, which causes more fat storage, and a blood sugar bounce.

    Some of the fast food shouldn't be fed to your pets, much less, you.

    The USDA predicts that 1 in 3 folks will have type 2 diabetes by 2020. type 2 diabetes is insulin insensitivity, a disease of obesity, and a disease that is 100% preventable with as little as two intense exercise situations a week.

    Earlier this week, Logan and I were Walmart here in Lewisville. There was a fat ass kid, about 22, who said "I'm really friggin thirsty." I remarked, "Dude, that's a sign of type 2 diabetes." He grabs his shirt, and says "So is a black ring." (Showing me his narcosis as a badge of courage.) I said, "You understand type 2 diabetes is a disease of obesity and is preventable with as little as two exercise sessions a week." The kid gives me a dirty look, and says "runs in my family." It seems he'd rather lose digits than clean up his diet and get active. What a tragedy. So very sad. Logan, a type 1 diabetic, and I, shrugged and left the store, knowing that if this kid has a black ring at 22, his toes aren't far behind. Pretty pathetic, and NO ONE INTERVENES. Where are the kid's parents? Why hasn't his employer or his school stepped in? We intervene on folks who hurt themselves with drugs, and....we should damned well start doing it on fat asses.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 18, 2010 5:21 PM GMT

    rug12ds
    i think the whole point of his lecture is that the last 30 years of nutritional research has had an agenda, namely to allow for cheap and marketable food by claiming that a decrease in fat intake and an increase in sugar levels is a healthy change in diet. He may be pushing an agenda, but his agenda is not so he can sell a new diet or make loads of money, his agenda is to make America a healthier nation.



    Yup exactly...it's all a giant conspiracy.... and you can only read about it in his new book

    Oh and you don't know the worst part.... Soylent green is actually....well you'll have to buy the book to find out..... icon_confused.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 18, 2010 6:59 PM GMT
    rug12ds said
    wave173 saidIt's sad when an endocrinologist is trying to debunk 30 years of nutrition research. He clearly has a hidden agenda and will be trying to promote some new diet fad to make money. When he says to maintain calories in = calories out is incorrect, he loses all credibility. I'm glad I'm a nutritionist that isn't swayed by someone with an agenda and stick to facts based on research.


    i think the whole point of his lecture is that the last 30 years of nutritional research has had an agenda, namely to allow for cheap and marketable food by claiming that a decrease in fat intake and an increase in sugar levels is a healthy change in diet. He may be pushing an agenda, but his agenda is not so he can sell a new diet or make loads of money, his agenda is to make America a healthier nation.

    I also don't see whats so controversial about his lecture, all he is claiming is that products with elevated fructose levels aren't good for us except when used sparingly. His point is that the human body is not meant to metabolize large amounts of fructose and if it does the result is excess fat as well as other negative side effects. For thousands of years humans could only obtain fructose in small amounts through fruits and whenever fructose was consumed so was fiber (fiber mitigating the damage of fructose). So if we eat naturally fructose and refined sugars dont pose a problem. But that isn't the case. His point is rather simple, soft drinks, high sugar foods, and high sugar juices are bad for us.... I really dont think this is that controversial of a claim.

    and as for the claim that calories in = calories out doesn't work, i think what he is trying to say is that body composition and health cannot be simply determined by the number of calories one consumes. If you have one person eat 2000 calories at mc donalds every day and another person eat 2000 calories of home cooked and non-refined sugar foods every day (keeping all other variables the same) I guarantee you the second person will be much healthier... This should be quite obvious


    Very well written

    The obesity epidemic accelerated in the 1970s when high fructose corn syrup began replacing fat in the diet. There should be around 15 gm of fructose in a healthy diet. Fructose is fruit sugar and certainly not toxic or lethal. At the time of World War 2, the amount of fructose in the diet was 16 to 24 grams. In 1975 the amount was 37 gms per day. 1975 was the year that high fructose corn syrup was introduced. Today the average adolescent consumes 72.8 gms of fructose a day (Dr Lustig is full professor of pediatrics and director of the obesity clinic at UCSF Med School...hence his interest in adolescents. The lecture is from a continuing medical series from UCSF and subject to peer review.)
    Fructose unlike the sugar glucose cannot be directly used for energy by the brain and muscles. Fructose instead goes to the liver where it is converted to glycogen (not bad since this is an energy source used during exercise). The liver converts the remainder to fat and a few unhealthy byproducts. Uric acid is one of these. Uric acid causes gout, kidney stones, and is a risk factor for atherosclerosis. Uric acid inhibits the nitric oxide in the endothelial cells lining blood vessels making the vessels stiff. Many of you take supplements to raise the nitric oxide levels to get e a better pump. Uric acid inhibits nitric oxide. There is also a lot of citrate made which is converted to VLDL, a bad cholesterol, leading to atherosclerosis. Fructose metabolism also results in a blunted response by the brain to the hormone leptin. Leptin tells the brain to stop being hungry. If the leptin response is blunted, you will have constant hunger.
    Table sugar (sucrose) is one half glucose and one half fructose. The glucose portion does not cause as much health problems as the fructose portion. If you receive intravenous fluids in the hospital, glucose is the sugar used for energy.

    We need to get the amount of dietary fructose back to levels found at the time of World War 2.

    The lecture made a lot of sense to me. Since I am not an expert in nutrition or biochemistry, I could be easily hoodwinked.icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 18, 2010 6:59 PM GMT
    MsclDrew said
    rug12ds
    i think the whole point of his lecture is that the last 30 years of nutritional research has had an agenda, namely to allow for cheap and marketable food by claiming that a decrease in fat intake and an increase in sugar levels is a healthy change in diet. He may be pushing an agenda, but his agenda is not so he can sell a new diet or make loads of money, his agenda is to make America a healthier nation.



    Yup exactly...it's all a giant conspiracy.... and you can only read about it in his new book

    Oh and you don't know the worst part.... Soylent green is actually....well you'll have to buy the book to find out..... icon_confused.gif


    an agenda is not quite the same thing as a conspiracy. All I'm suggesting is that the food industry has monetary incentive to circulate the belief that HFCS is not dangerous to our health anymore than glucose or other sugars such as lactose.

    I should clarify my position in saying that I don't think all of our current nutritional knowledge and research is bunk, we've come along way. But that does not mean that we've got everything figured out, and furthermore it does not mean that it is inconceivable to think that for monetary reasons certain scientific knowledge and data might be overlooked. It would be naive and foolishly arrogant to regard our current knowledge with such tenacity as to think that we could not possibly be wrong.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 19, 2010 3:05 AM GMT
    MsclDrew saidWhat, what what........

    Okay biochem lesson here

    1. Fructose is metabolised to fructose 1,6 bisphosphate, cleaved to Diacyl-glycerol and glyeraldehyde 3 phosphate converted to pyruvate and acetyl-COA where it is metabolized to H20 and CO2 via TCA cycle. It does not and can not accumulate in our bodies

    2. it's not in any way metabolized similar to alcohol. Different tissues and enzymes. The end product is acetyl CoA. The same breakdown product for all carbohydrate and fats in your diet. So it's evident he's exploiting a basic biochemical fact to create paranoia Besides when it comes to the toxic effects of alcohol end products are not the issue Alcohol is only damaging in alcohol form.

    3. of course baby food contains as much sugar as coke....so do most fruit juices and breast milk. "sugar" is not a bad thing a baby has a different stomach chemistry to a child they are required to absorb immunoglobulin proteins whole from the mother during the first few months. So they can't breakdown fats, or large peptides. Like it or not a baby need sugar for energy, to double it's weight every 3 months for the first year

    The man is using junk science to push an agenda and no I don't have time to watch an hour and a half of junk science

    And people don't choose to be fat... they disregard their personal responsibility for being fat, prefering to seek someone else to blame they are different


    OMG THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU

    As a HEALTH SCIENCE MAJOR AND CHEMISTRY MAJOR....I THINK I JUST FELL IN LOVE!!

    I didnt even listen to the guy...I have NO NEED to because I know the chemistry behind it so this guy and anyone that believes him need to look at a textbook.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 19, 2010 3:26 AM GMT
    What, no one's going to break down the Krebs cycle? What kind of burly jocks are you?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 19, 2010 5:20 AM GMT
    A kid on my high school football team died of water poisoning during my sophomore season. He simply drank a ton of water.. apparently that diluted the chemical reactions in his body (which is what gives your body it's heat).. so eventually his body temperature got too low, he collapsed and died.

    Moral: Everything, in some amount, can kill you. SO! ... don't be the retarded guy who eats his body weight in sugar.