Question for the VURD

[triadruid]

Can anybody debunk/source this? It makes sense in a way, but also sounds a bit like voodoo science... the original poster didn't cite a source, and it's on a private forum so I can't link to the thread, sorry.

It's important to understand that fructose is isocaloric but not isometabolic. This means you can have the same amount of calories from fructose or glucose, fructose and protein, or fructose and fat, but the metabolic effect will be entirely different despite the identical calorie count. This is largely because different nutrients provoke different hormonal responses, and those hormonal responses determine, among other things, how much fat you accumulate. This is why the idea that you can lose weight by counting calories simply doesn't work...

Fructose is metabolized primarily by your liver, whereas glucose is metabolized in every cell of your body.

Every cell in your body, including your brain, utilizes glucose. Therefore, much of it is "burned up" immediately after you consume it. By contrast, fructose is turned into free fatty acids (FFAs), VLDL (the damaging form of cholesterol), and triglycerides, which get stored as fat.

For example, when you eat 120 calories of glucose, less than one calorie is stored as fat. 120 calories of fructose results in 40 calories being stored as fat. Consuming fructose is essentially consuming fat.

Also, glucose suppresses the hunger hormone ghrelin and stimulates leptin, which suppresses your appetite. Fructose has no effect on ghrelin and interferes with your brain's communication with leptin, resulting in overeating.

Comments

mostly, YES

[saffronhare.livejournal.com]

For the most part, this jives with what my father has been learning through his diabetes education. Except for that last part about ghrelin and leptin, which I'd never heard before (which only means it's unfamiliar, whether true or not).

Not all calories are created equal; and not all "sugars" are metabolized the same way in the body. To add to the complication, sugars may or may not act like a toxin or allergen in an individual's body, regardless of the different ways they're metabolized, which(in my opinion) is more the crux of the matter. Frexampul, sugar is definitely a toxin for me. But plain sugar is still easier for me to handle than artificial sweeteners and even naturally derived alternative sweeteners like xylitol or even stevia (which make me feel ill likewhoa). But for Matthew? Not so much. His toxin seems to be sodium. ::shrug::

YMMV

[rougewench.livejournal.com]

I know that the part of about fructose being metabolised in the liver is true.

Robert Lustig has given a number of talks regarding this issue, but a good one is here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0z5X0i92OZQ&feature=related


D.

[triadruid.livejournal.com]

Awesome, thank you both for more information!