You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Why Sugar Is Public Enemy Number 1
I send you an article that says 90% of fructose is metabolised in the small intestine and NOT the liver as previously thought.
You send me a link by a doctor who thinks ethanol is a carbohydrate.
We are arguing if fructose is bad for human consumption. You've said it isn't, I've said it is. You also previously argued that the liver was not involved in metabolizing fructose. You sent this article (https://www.cell.com/cell-metabolism/abstract/S1550-4131(17)30729-5) which is a summary of a study completed by several individuals including specifically Joshua D. Rabinowitz.
While we should review/read the entire summary you are interested in this one part here which you repeat a lot:
but for some reason you want to ignore these other statements that are present in that same summary:
and this
You've sent me a study where in the summary they (the authors, in both the study summary and interviews) agree with my position that fructose is strongly associated with diseases in humans and "high" doses of fructose end up being metabolized in the liver and ~10% of "low" doses are metabolized in the liver.
If you read more than just the summary of your study to get a clearer picture on what your source thinks (so far we only have that they think fructose is strongly associated with diseases in humans and that high doses get passed to the liver). We still need to know what they consider a high dose? I sent back this article (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/02/180206140645.htm) which is an interview with one Joshua D. Rabinowitz about the study you referenced (he is one of the authors of that study) in the previous link and he provides us with the information we need.
Joshua says:
So we now know the amount of sugar (half a can of soda) that overwhelms the intestine and gets passed onto the liver. Your source says that fructose is bad, fruit is ok because it gets caught by the intestine but half a can of soda's worth of sugar and then it starts hitting the liver.
The source you've provided does just as well for my argument. Your study doesn't overturn anything I've claimed only validated it and offered a reason for why fruits and veggies aren't a health problem (they don't go over the high dose fructose threshold) while half a can of soda, fruit juice, or processed foods go over the limit and are a problem for human health.
Let's get this straight. 1g sugar per kg is the limit not 1/2 a can of soda that's 3 litres. Polishing off the sugar equivalent of 3 litres of Coke in one sitting is not only considered excess but very abnormal.
The American Chemistry Association states that drinking 6 litres of water will kill you. Using the same flawed logic as you water is dangerous and we should not drink it. Taking 40k IU of vitamin D a day is toxic and will kill you therefore we should not take vitamin D.
Where does this nonsense stop? Taking anything to excess is bad for you. Anything.
Hey it's your source.
but seriously I think they are saying 1g per thousand so by weight of fructose in the food/drink. They don't clearly say it in the interview but we know that they explicitly say that half a can of soda will put you over the limit. I'd assume they understand their own results.
a 12 oz can of coke has 39 grams of sugar. If we assume that is regular sugar it will break down to about 19.5g of fructose. A 12 floz soda weighs about 390g so the fructose would come in about 5% by weight. That is still within the same order of magnitude so it seems right just as a check.
I found this (https://f1000.com/prime/732607607) from that same study which says
They quote 3g of fructose in humans to put it over the limit which is less than our 1/2 can of soda (10G fructose) but still on the same order. I also assumed a 12fl oz can where no specific size was specified (could have been 7.5fl oz).
The 3g limit is a good number to have, basically I think it means that you shouldn't consume more than 6g of sugar in a sitting (50% fructose) if you want to keep it out of your liver (good to know!). They also say that eating other foods offers a protective effect because it slows down how fast the fructose hits the small intestine so it can get more of it before it hits the liver
I'd agree with you that it isn't the drug it is the dose. Alcohol is clearly a toxin but I enjoy taking it in and there are health benefits to moderate consumption. The problem is that we consume much more sugar than we ever have before (on average), the change occurring even in the last 30 years. Most of that is hidden... on average (I seem to recall) maybe 1/3 from sugary drinks and 1/6 from deserts/treats but around 50% is just mixed into our food (tomato sauce, yogurt, peanut butter, fast food etc).
This has turned into a pretty fruitful discussion (if anyone else has stuck around for it!). Understanding that some of the fructose gets dealt with by the intestine and we need to limit single sitting level doses to around 3g before it starts most (all?) of the negative health effects is good to know. (also dilute it with lots of other food). Of course further studies pending and they just gave us estimates based on what they saw in mice.