Refined sugar in dried fruit

OK then - why isn't it!

Yes it is.

I am waiting for hestia to tell me why fructose is NOT more difficult for the body to deal with. We had this discussion here umpteen times now. So hestia tell me what you know that I don't.

It travels a different pathway to glucose, and there are many options to how the body processes it. Yes, fructose can be converted into fat, but it can also be converted into glucose or stored as glycogen. It certainly isn't a difficult process for the body to handle it.

April 21, 2009 -- New research shows big differences in how the sugars fructose and glucose are metabolized by the body.

The study included 32 overweight or obese men and women whose average age was 50.

Over a 10-week period, the men and women drank either glucose- or fructose-sweetened beverages, totaling 25% of their daily calorie intake, either in an outpatient setting (eight weeks long) or highly controlled inpatient setting (two weeks long).

Both the groups gained weight during the trial, but imaging studies revealed that most of the added fat in the fructose group occurred in the belly, while most of the fat gained by the glucose group was subcutaneous (under the skin).

Belly fat, but not subcutaneous fat, has been linked to an increased risk for heart disease and diabetes.

The fructose group had higher total cholesterol and LDL "bad" cholesterol, plus greater insulin resistance, which are consistent with metabolic syndrome, while the glucose group did not.

The research appears in the latest issue of the Journal of Clinical Investigation.

http://www.webmd.com/heart/metabolic-syndrome/news/20090421/fresh-take-on-fructose-vs-glucose

One recent meta-analysis of several small trials in healthy volunteers indicated that fasting and postprandial triglyceride concentrations were increased with intake higher than 100 g and 50 g/day, respectively (corresponding to sucrose intake of 200 and 100 g/day). In an average non-obese individual with moderate physical activity, this corresponds to 15 to 20% and 7.5 to 10%, respectively, of total daily energy intake.

Consumption of sugar is about 100 to 150 g/day in America, Europe, and Oceania (with important regional differences), corresponding to 50 to 75 g of fructose daily. Since these are averages for the whole population, it means that probably about half of the population has a daily consumption in excess of these figures, and may thus be possibly exposed to fructose-induced dyslipidemia.

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7007/10/42

Another meta-analysis of studies in which fructose was substituted for starch in the diet of type 2 diabetic subjects indicated that plasma triglyceride concentrations were increased for fructose intakes higher than 60 g/day. However, even with moderate amounts of fructose (40 g/day) that do not change fasting plasma triglycerides, one can observe a shift from large to more atherogenic small, dense LDL particles.

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7007/10/42

No it is not a difficult process for the body, it just leads to non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and a couple of other problems like hypertension and arteriosclerosis if you eat too much of it.

25% of calorie intake from fructose is not a real world example. Nobody drinks beverages sweetened purely with fructose or glucose. If you consumed that much, AND were in a calorie surplus (as evidenced by the fact they gained weight), you are going to have problems.What happens to your body in a calorie excess is entirely different to how it behaves at maintenance or in a deficit. Have a look at how your blood lipids change when consuming a low carb, high fat diet at excess calorie levels.

Once again, it is the excess that causes the issues. When not in excess, there are no problems. Same with fat. Don't take the extreme examples and assume that similar effects will happen at lesser levels, as you'll be simply wrong.

From that link:

"Lactic acid produced from fructose can be oxidized by the working muscle, and hence moderate amounts of fructose consumed together with glucose during exercise can increase total carbohydrate oxidation and may improve physical performance. Since fructose is known to cause a larger synthesis of hepatic glycogen than glucose, its presence in the diet before and after exercise may also be beneficial to ensure high hepatic glycogen stores."

So fructose can be beneficial is some circumstances. It will preferentially refill liver glycogen stores, depleted after exercise. That is a good thing.

"There is clearly cause for immediate concern regarding potential long-term effects of very high fructose intake in patients with metabolic disorders and in subjects already at risk of developing metabolic disease due to overweight or low physical activity."

No surprises there - very high intakes for obese or inactive people isn't good. But, to be fair, any excessive intake of calories isn't good for these people either.

"There is no evidence, however, that fructose is the sole, or even the main factor in the development of these diseases, nor that it is deleterious to everybody, and public health initiatives should therefore broadly focus on the promotion of healthy lifestyles generally, with restriction of both sugar and saturated fat intakes, and consumption of whole grains, fresh fruits and vegetables rather than focusing exclusively on reduction of sugar intake. "

I am assuming that in linking to that text that you agree with it, and its recommendation of decreasing saturated fats, and eating whole grains and fruit.

Actually we haven't.