I believe fructose, a monosaccharide commonly maligned around the internet, shows some promise as a dietary adjunct to treat type 2 diabetes. Several diet trials have been conducted which demonstrated its beneficial effects on this population. Continue reading
In my previous post I looked at studies showing sucrose to have similar health effects as glucose and starch (not entirely the same effects granted, but close). Yet hundreds of studies exist demonstrating the negative effects of fructose compared to glucose. If sucrose contains fructose, one might think sucrose should look worse compared to glucose.
So why then is sucrose not as unhealthy as the sum of its parts? I’ll be presenting a hypothesis on why I think this occurs. Continue reading
Fructose is not a friend of many nutrition minded people these days. With videos by Robert Lustig and dozens of studies on rats, fructose is being cast in a much worse light than its monosaccharide cousin glucose. There are even human studies supporting the idea that eating fructose instead of glucose will give you belly fat, diabetes, high triglycerides, and other health maladies:
However, someone recently pointed something out to me: almost every fructose bashing study used fructose alone, or free fructose. Yet hardly anyone consumes very much free fructose unless they’re using agave syrup. Most fructose we consume comes with glucose, often in the form of sucrose. Well, what if the negative effects of fructose were largely removed when looking at sucrose, or fructose + glucose? Continue reading