Fructose Linked to More Metabolic Problems than Glucose

Fructose Linked to More Metabolic Problems than Glucose
By Kristina Fiore, Staff Writer, MedPage Today
Published: April 21, 2009
Reviewed by Robert Jasmer, MD; Associate Clinical Professor of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco Earn CME/CE credit
for reading medical news


LITTLE FALLS, N.J., April 21 -- Fructose appears to pose more problems with insulin resistance, dyslipidemia, and visceral adipose tissue in heavy patients than its companion sugar glucose, researchers said. Action Points
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Explain that patients who consumed drinks sweetened with fructose had an increase in visceral adipose tissue, dyslipidemia, de novo lipogenesis, and insulin resistance, compared with those who drank glucose-sweetened drinks.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overweight or obese patients who consumed soft drinks sweetened with either glucose or fructose both gained weight.


But only those who had the fructose drinks saw an increase in visceral adipose tissue, dyslipidemia, hepatic de novo lipogenesis, and insulin resistance, Peter J. Havel, M.D., of the University of California Davis, and colleagues reported online in the Journal of Clinical Investigation.


In the real world, most people consume a combination of the two simple sugars, either as sucrose (table sugar) or high-fructose corn syrup, used in many sweetened beverages and commercial products.


Previous research had established that fructose is associated with a variety of adverse effects in animals, but evidence was lacking in humans, Dr. Havel's group noted.


So they enrolled 32 patients in a double-blinded, parallel arm study. For 10 weeks, the patients consumed 25% of their daily energy from soft drinks sweetened with either fructose or glucose.


Both groups gained comparable amounts of weight, but those who drank fructose-sweetened drinks had an increase in lipid deposition in visceral adipose tissue. Those who drank glucose-sweetened beverages had an increase in subcutaneous adipose tissue.


They also found that fructose consumption increased plasma concentrations of fasting small dense LDL (sdLDL) and oxidized LDL, whereas glucose consumption did not.


The researchers said these changes "may be associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease."


Hepatic de novo lipogenesis was also increased in those who had fructose drinks, but not those who had glucose drinks. Subsequently, the researchers said, increased lipids from fructose-induced de novo lipogenesis led to insulin resistance as well.


The researchers noted that average consumers drink beverages sweetened with either sucrose (50% glucose, 50% fructose) or high-fructose corn syrup (55% glucose, 45% fructose), rather than either of the pure sugars.


So, it may be that the adverse effects of these sweeteners are "diluted" by their lower fructose content relative to pure fructose, the researchers said.


Also, the average American consumes about 16% of daily energy from added sugars, not the exaggerated 25% in the study.


The researchers said that further studies are needed to determine what levels of dietary added sugars "are associated with adverse changes of lipids and decreased insulin sensitivity in different populations."


In an accompanying editorial, Susanna M. Hofmann, M.D., and Matthias H. Tschop, M.D., of the University of Cincinnati, said the findings make clear that "chronic overconsumption of dietary sugars in general is detrimental to our health, and these effects may be synergistic with chronic increases in caloric intake."


They also wrote that Dr. Havel and colleagues' findings "provide major scientific progress by demonstrating marked differences in the metabolic effects of these two major sugars with respect to their ability to promote intra-abdominal lipid deposition and hepatic lipid production, while shifting cholesterol metabolism in an unfavorable manner and diminishing insulin sensitivity in humans."


The study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health, the National Center for Research Resources, the Roadmap for Medical Research, and the American Diabetes Association.

The researchers reported no conflicts of interest.




Primary source: Journal of Clinical Investigation
Source reference:
Stanhope KL, et al "Consuming fructose-sweetened, not glucose-sweetened, beverages increases visceral adiposity and lipids and decreases insulin sensitivity in overweight/obese humans" J Clin Investigation 2009; DOI: 10.1172/JCI137385.

http://www.medpagetoday.com/PrimaryCare ... 0369010482

LoneStar wrote: ........

I think regulation of HFCS use in foods will become the next "transfat" issue.

Lisa

rooster wrote:

LoneStar wrote: ........

I think regulation of HFCS use in foods will become the next "transfat" issue.

Lisa

Lisa,

There is a good chance of that.

HFCS has been a 40-year experiment on a population of 300 million. And the results have maybe been disastrous.

Someone was telling me this weekend about a famous activist they heard talk. He says the restaurant (not just fast food) and processed food industry figured out something about a combination of HFCS and fat. Apparently your body quickly learns to love and crave the HFCS/fat combination. It is almost like a physical addiction that brings you back often and makes you want large portions.

If someone has links to that discussion, please post them.

DreamStalker wrote:........
The disaster of HFCS is no experiment. It is the result of pure unregulated corporate greed.........

rooster wrote:

DreamStalker wrote:........
The disaster of HFCS is no experiment. It is the result of pure unregulated corporate greed.........

Unregulated?

You better check the facts. HFCS is there because government put large tariffs on imported sugar cane and gave subsidies to corn producers. The government clearly drove this one over the last 35 years. If government had kept their meddling hands out of free market capitalism, consumers would have saved billions on sugar and HFCS would never have become the sweetener of choice.

rooster wrote:

DreamStalker wrote:........
The disaster of HFCS is no experiment. It is the result of pure unregulated corporate greed.........

Unregulated?

You better check the facts. HFCS is there because government put large tariffs on imported sugar cane and gave subsidies to corn producers. The government clearly drove this one over the last 35 years. If government had kept their meddling hands out of free market capitalism, consumers would have saved billions on sugar and HFCS would never have become the sweetener of choice.

JeffH wrote:Watch this if you want to see an interesting documentary about our screwed up ag industry...mainly corn.

http://www.kingcorn.net/