Banner
    Fructose May Not Be As Bad For Us As Claimed
    By News Staff | June 22nd 2012 06:30 AM | 7 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
    A new review of studies suggests that fructose may not be as bad for us as previously thought - it may even provide some benefit. 

    Fructose, which is naturally found in fruit, vegetables and honey, is a simple sugar that together with glucose forms sucrose, the basis of table sugar. It is also found in high-fructose corn syrup, the most common sweetener in commercially prepared foods.

    The study reviewed 18 trials with 209 participants who had Type 1 and 2 diabetes and found fructose significantly improved their blood sugar control. The improvement was equivalent to what can be achieved with an oral antidiabetic drug.  Even more promising, the researchers said, is that there was benefit even without adverse effects on body weight, blood pressure, uric acid (gout) or cholesterol. 

    In all the trials they reviewed, participants were fed diets where fructose was incorporated or sprinkled on to test foods such as cereals or coffee. The diets with fructose had the same amount of calories as the ones without.


    "Over the last decade, there have been connections made between fructose intake and rates of obesity," said Dr. John Sievenpiper, a senior author of the study. "However, this research suggests that the problem is likely one of overconsumption, not fructose."

    "Attention needs to go back where it belongs, which is on the concept of moderation," said Adrian Cozma, lead author of the paper. "We're seeing that there may be benefit if fructose wasn't being consumed in such large amounts. All negative attention on fructose-related harm draws further away from the issue of eating too many calories." 

    Like all works in progress, although the results are encouraging, the authors warn that it's important to be cautious because longer and larger studies are still needed.


    Published in Diabetes Care.

    Comments

    Gerhard Adam
    "However, this research suggests that the problem is likely one of overconsumption, not fructose."
    DUH!!! ... of course it's a problem of overconsumption.  The question is whether or not fructose may be processed differently thereby accelerating [or not] the accumulation/conversion of fructose to fat.  It should be pretty obvious that it doesn't matter what you eat at low calorie levels, as that will not lead to obesity.  It may have nutritional or all manner of other effects, but obesity isn't going to be one of them.
    Hank
    Right, an exculpatory magic bullet seems to be loved by media but it doesn't make sense.  If you ever read forums on lung cancer, for example, the one thing a lot of people with lung cancer resent is the notion that they got it from smoking even though 50% of them never smoked - people act like they could have avoided it because the media and advocacy full press has campaigned that smoking causes cancer.

    HFCS today or whatever becomes a fad in 2013 are not magic bullets either; we are not going to ban Big Gulps or any type of sugar and have people get thin. They will just move onto something else. 
    Want more no-nonsense, independent science? Buy Science Left Behind
    Hank, this is way off topic from the article, but have you ever looked at the EPA website for cancer risk from chronic radon exposure for nonsmokers vs smokers? There is an interesting nugget of data in there. Smoking and radon exposure synergistically increase one's lung cancer risk, and radon alone increases one's cancer risk, but when you look at smokers who are exposed to the lowest levels of radon, their lung cancer risk is actually VERY low (only 3/1000 over a lifetime) implying that smoking alone isn't likely to make a big difference in lung cancer rates. Certainly not saying smoking isn't harmful (COPD, heart disease, other cancers), but it is a 1000 lb gorilla in the room that no one is talking about since the biggest risk ascribed to smoking is lung cancer. Scroll down to the bottom to see the charts: http://www.epa.gov/radon/healthrisks.html

    Yes fructose came from fruits but this HFCS added in foods and beverages we buy are not naturally made. It is highly processed that makes it not natural and harmful to our health. If you believe that it's not bad to our health you must read this article and I hope it change your mind - http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/01/02/highfructose-corn-syrup-alters-human-metabolism.aspx

    Hank
    So you believe that bleached white table sugar is better for you?  You are wrong.
    Want more no-nonsense, independent science? Buy Science Left Behind
    I didn't say it is better for me but I suggest that we reduce our sugar intake.

    Hank
    Okay, but that is not what you wrote; you claimed because HFCS was somehow not 'natural' it was harmful to our health and I was asking if table sugar was okay.  Now are you saying too much of any sugar is bad. That makes perfect sense - claiming HFCS is some sort of super bad sugar falls in line nicely with sugar lobbyist goals, but it isn't true. 
    Want more no-nonsense, independent science? Buy Science Left Behind