Sp the rest of my family eat SAD, and my sister is a type 1 diabetic. My mother recently brought home a jar of jam made with fructose for her because it was labelled "suitable for diabetics". Why is this? It was my understanding that fructose, like glucose, raised blood sugar and caused a subsequent insulin response. Is this reckless/irresponsible advertising? I've given up on trying to convince them fructose is bad, they see it as a natural "fruit sugar", and believe glucose is the one to watch.
asked byRoryD (623)
Get FREE instant access to our Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!
on May 06, 2013
at 02:47 PM
Actually, fructose causes a significantly lower insulin and blood sugar spike than glucose so it may, for that reason, be preferable in people with poorly controlled blood sugar. Refined fructose surely doesn't seem optimal, but in diabetics it generally appears healthier than your average SAD diet starchy foods.
"After 6 months of taking fructose, fasting serum glucose decreased from 12.6 +/- 1.1 (+/- SE) to 9.8 +/- 1.3 mmol l-1 (p less than 0.02), while it was unchanged on normal diet (11.0 +/- 0.1 vs 11.6 +/- 0.9 mmol l-1, NS). Glycosylated haemoglobin was also reduced from 11.3 +/- 0.4 to 9.9 +/- 0.5% (p less than 0.05) on fructose, but unchanged on the control diet (10.4 +/- 0.7 vs 11.2 +/- 0.7%, NS)".
"Thus, this study demonstrates that addition of moderate amounts of fructose as a natural sweetener in the physiologic mixed meal does not appear to have deleterious effects on glycemic control and lipid and lipoprotein metabolism in ambulatory obese patients with type II diabetes and poor metabolic control. Rather, a slight improvement in glycemic control and alterations in the apoprotein compositions in favor of decreased risk for coronary artery disease may occur".
on May 07, 2013
at 11:04 AM
It's very simple. For the same reason that when I look in the grocery store, I can find a jar of pickles with "Fat Free" on the label. Not that there exists any pickled cucumber that contains fat, but because the manufacturers (again crap in a bottle is a factory product, not a natural food), figured out that people are stupid and easily fooled, and they're willing to put anything they can get away with on the label, or inside the bottle, to make a sale, or worse a repeated sale due to addiction.
Yes, in absolute terms, fructose will not cause an insulin response, so it's true that they are suitable for diabetics in that sense that it's a "low glycemic product", however, the question is, should it be considered suitable to destroy one's liver, just because they're suffering of one disease to help them down on the road to another nasty disease: Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease.
In an honest world, a steak would carry the label "Suitable for Diabetics."
on May 06, 2013
at 11:30 PM
Mscott is spot on with this one. Diabetes is essentially glucose intolerance. Fructose is metabolized differently and does not cause as much of an insulin response. This is why Soda (HFCS) has a lower Glycemic Index than White Bread (pure glucose). That said Fructose is still something which one should limit on a daily basis. It is metabolized primarily by the liver, and chronic overconsumption of fructose wrecks havoc on the body. Also remember, the standard prescription for diabetics is to eat Less fat, More "healthy whole grains" (glucose) and just take insulin sensitizing drugs (metformin) and inject insulin so that they can tolerate the glucose--ie. keep getting fatter and sicker and do nothing to correct the problem. I don't want to start ranting on the treatment of diabetics by standard doctors, but it is downright ridiculous.
on May 06, 2013
at 08:36 PM
The average persons insistence on believing anything because its written on a food package always amazes me.