4

votes

Evidence that sucrose is worse for health than glucose?

Answered on August 19, 2014
Created September 21, 2012 at 2:53 AM

I've been looking into the evidence of the health effects of sucrose or similar glucose-fructose mixtures found in fruit compared to glucose or starch.

There's seems to be a fair amount of evidence that fructose can be bad, but most of the commonly cited studies for this opinion use fructose only (not fructose and glucose together). Are there any studies that compared glucose or starch to fructose-glucose or sucrose? Preferably as performed on humans?

I'd especially enjoy seeing a study on the effects of equal calories of a fruit versus a tuber.

Thanks!

Bb3d1772b28c02da2426e40dfcb533f5

(5381)

on September 30, 2012
at 10:05 PM

Well I read about it on wikipedia, under fructose (as well as in fodmaps related material). But the wiki reference for that is no longer active.

742ff8ba4ff55e84593ede14ac1c3cab

(3536)

on September 25, 2012
at 11:45 PM

Nice finds......

B0fe7b5a9a197cd293978150cbd9055f

(8938)

on September 24, 2012
at 09:50 AM

*"If anything, fruit back then did not have as much fructose as it has now, it was smaller in size, it had less flesh and it was not as sweet."* even if that were true, it still doesn't mean eating modern fruit is bad...

A2c38be4c54c91a15071f82f14cac0b3

(12682)

on September 24, 2012
at 01:18 AM

Thanks Korion! Let me now if you have any human studies as well.

A2c38be4c54c91a15071f82f14cac0b3

(12682)

on September 23, 2012
at 11:46 PM

Thanks for the answer daz. Interesting stuff for sure, it does look sucrose can cause steatosis under specific conditions. In rodents at least. I don't have studies to support this, but I expect you'd see the same thing in humans, but you'd have to replicate many of the diet parameters (e.g. low choline, low protein, nutrient poor, high sugar, high pufa). Still, many people in the US likely fit such criteria.

543a65b3004bf5a51974fbdd60d666bb

(4493)

on September 23, 2012
at 11:15 PM

another fatty liver study http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2805058/ "Comparison of free fructose and glucose to sucrose in the ability to cause fatty liver"

543a65b3004bf5a51974fbdd60d666bb

(4493)

on September 23, 2012
at 11:13 PM

another study http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2805058/ "Comparison of free fructose and glucose to sucrose in the ability to cause fatty liver"

543a65b3004bf5a51974fbdd60d666bb

(4493)

on September 23, 2012
at 11:02 PM

just found what put me on to these articles, it was actually your post here http://paleohacks.com/questions/150900/hack-this-research-does-mct-cause-fatty-liver-disease/150925#150925

B0fe7b5a9a197cd293978150cbd9055f

(8938)

on September 23, 2012
at 10:15 PM

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1221903 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/002604959590123X are two animal studies with some evidence that sucrose is better than starch.

A2c38be4c54c91a15071f82f14cac0b3

(12682)

on September 22, 2012
at 06:57 PM

Jamie, do you know of any sources where I could read about this fructose rate limit? I'm just trying to be educated and want to evaluate things as fairly as possible. I don't actually eat much fruit, maybe a banana and an orange or two a day. Sometimes some honey in my morning tea.

A2c38be4c54c91a15071f82f14cac0b3

(12682)

on September 22, 2012
at 06:43 PM

But mostly, it just seems very reductionist to say sucrose will produce the same negative effects as free fructose. Things are rarely just the sum of their parts in nutrition.

A2c38be4c54c91a15071f82f14cac0b3

(12682)

on September 22, 2012
at 06:39 PM

Jamie: Here's a few 1) Glucose improves fructose absorption. If fructose alone is malabsorbed, it could contribute dysibiosis and bacterial toxin production. Adding glucose (as in sucrose) would likely not cause this. 2) Fructose causes a minimal insulin response, sucrose causes a much larger one. Since insulin upregulates AGE detoxifying proteins, fructose alone would thus may more likely to cause glycation. In fact, insulin has many effects that should be accounted for.

F5a0ddffcf9ef5beca864050f090a790

(15515)

on September 22, 2012
at 06:07 AM

@CD - I think of it differently. I bet if there are studies comparing digestion of fructose from fruits with fructose from another source (same amount), the digestion would be completely different.

F5a0ddffcf9ef5beca864050f090a790

(15515)

on September 22, 2012
at 06:04 AM

@ Mscott - thanks for the article, very informative. But this is tropics. What about colder regions? I am not talking about tundra, but let's say, North America (Northern States and Southern part of Canada), Europe? Even in ancient Egypt fruits were smaller in size (according to archaeologists' findings).

Bb3d1772b28c02da2426e40dfcb533f5

(5381)

on September 22, 2012
at 03:46 AM

^ I would _guess_ that the body is evolved to handle smaller amounts of fructose. The fructose rate limit is evidence of this, and how its stored. Thus, i would _guess_ that when it comes to fructose its about quantity, in terms of how it effects you health. Is there a reason why you want to know (ie do you eat alot of fruit, or are you thinking about the health of fruit eating)

Bb3d1772b28c02da2426e40dfcb533f5

(5381)

on September 22, 2012
at 03:41 AM

Honey isnt just fructose either, it has maltose and galactose, and its also got insulin like compounds. I will happily veiw honey as a quite different best (not to say excess honey still doesnt promote visceral fat though, its just less likely to reduce insulin sensitivity IMO)

Bb3d1772b28c02da2426e40dfcb533f5

(5381)

on September 22, 2012
at 03:39 AM

It might skew the results, true, if you want to analyze say, fruit, or honey (fruit has fibre, slowing absorbtion, glucose speed up absorbtion of fructose etc etc), but I think that despite any differences, fructose in whatever form will still have these effects, it just _might_ be a little ameliorated in whole foods. IDK about sucrose being much different tho. Its not like glucose produces opposite results, just more neutral ones (and it improves fructose absorbtion). Why do you think sucrose will be alot better than fructose (u say "multiple reasons" id like to hear em)?

543a65b3004bf5a51974fbdd60d666bb

(4493)

on September 21, 2012
at 11:04 PM

yes VB, sugar contents (fructose, glucose, maltose, sucrose) will vary between honeys. one article i read tested different honeys with fructose varying between 27.5g & 52.4 g/100g. a couple of refs; https://rirdc.infoservices.com.au/items/05-027 (free pdf) & http://www.countryrubes.com/images/Honey_Crystallization.pdf

A2c38be4c54c91a15071f82f14cac0b3

(12682)

on September 21, 2012
at 09:51 PM

Thanks for the links, CD.

A2c38be4c54c91a15071f82f14cac0b3

(12682)

on September 21, 2012
at 09:40 PM

Sorry VB, I meant that reply for Jamie. But to echo CD, I think that study used refined sugars without any residual phytochemicals that might skew the results.

3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7

(26217)

on September 21, 2012
at 06:25 PM

Oh. I see you are confused because you think that something in glucose might reduce the affects fructose as sucrose is a chemically bonded glucose and sucrose . Good question, but it is not the case. This study shows the effect of each fructose and glucose: http://www.jci.org/articles/view/37385. And this study shows that sucrose causes fat storage in both areas: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22205311

3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7

(26217)

on September 21, 2012
at 06:19 PM

VB, fructose is fructose. No matter where you get it, it's C6H12O6. Honey is different. Depending on the bees, the flowers, etc it has chemically different compounds.

3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7

(26217)

on September 21, 2012
at 06:14 PM

evidence of what? The fact that Glucose and Sucrose cause us to store fat differently?

A2c38be4c54c91a15071f82f14cac0b3

(12682)

on September 21, 2012
at 06:11 PM

VB-to your question on honey, I have no idea. That's interesting though, I'd love to try some of that honey. I'll see if I can find anything about the sugar content. To your second comment, there is certainly evolutionary arguments to be made for both sides. But the idea that fruit was smaller and less sweet may not actually be true: http://rawfoodsos.com/2011/05/31/wild-and-ancient-fruit/

F5a0ddffcf9ef5beca864050f090a790

(15515)

on September 21, 2012
at 06:08 PM

True, but, again, fructose in fruits and fructose from a bad in your grocery store are different. That's what I am trying to say - maybe I am not explaining it right.

A2c38be4c54c91a15071f82f14cac0b3

(12682)

on September 21, 2012
at 06:01 PM

Could you share your evidence of this?

A2c38be4c54c91a15071f82f14cac0b3

(12682)

on September 21, 2012
at 06:00 PM

Many fruits contain sucrose or free fructose and glucose in almost equal amounts. My question is whether this type of sugar (not sugar sources with large amounts of free fructose relative to glucose) has been shown to be bad, at least compared to glucose alone, like many tubers. So far no one has presented any evidence of this.

A2c38be4c54c91a15071f82f14cac0b3

(12682)

on September 21, 2012
at 05:55 PM

Yes, but this study was fructose versus glucose, not sucrose versus glucose. There are multiple reasons why fructose alone may cause problems that its combination with glucose may ameliorate. This is the type of study I was specifically trying to avoid.

F5a0ddffcf9ef5beca864050f090a790

(15515)

on September 21, 2012
at 05:33 PM

Jamie, but where does this fructose come from? Did you know that most fructose is now made from something like corn syrup (or something artificial). They should have tried different sources for their fructose.

F5a0ddffcf9ef5beca864050f090a790

(15515)

on September 21, 2012
at 01:51 PM

By the way, about your question, if you think logically - people would rely more on roots and tubers for calories/fullness than on fruit. If anything, fruit back then did not have as much fructose as it has now, it was smaller in size, it had less flesh and it was not as sweet.

F5a0ddffcf9ef5beca864050f090a790

(15515)

on September 21, 2012
at 01:47 PM

I have no idea, honestly, but I have some questions for you. Does wild honey (from wild bees) have as much sucrose as farmed honey? I bet there is some difference because a friend of mine has half-wild bees and his honey tastes completely different and it smells different too. It smells almost like flower perfume.

Bb3d1772b28c02da2426e40dfcb533f5

(5381)

on September 21, 2012
at 08:01 AM

Worth noting that glucose did still promote weight gain, but subcutaneous fat (the better kind) and it did raise triglycerides a little. But overall thats alot better than visceral fat, insulin insensitivity and messed up blood lipids (including LDL)

  • A2c38be4c54c91a15071f82f14cac0b3

    asked by

    (12682)
  • Views
    3.6K
  • Last Activity
    1282D AGO
Frontpage book

Get FREE instant access to our Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!

7 Answers

best answer

3
Bb3d1772b28c02da2426e40dfcb533f5

(5381)

on September 21, 2012
at 04:22 AM

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2673878/

"Consuming fructose-sweetened, not glucose-sweetened, beverages increases visceral adiposity and lipids and decreases insulin sensitivity in overweight/obese humans"

Its not a study on sucrose, but it compares fructose with glucose, which amounts to a similar thing as what you want. In think theres quite a few studies linking fructose to visceral fat.

F5a0ddffcf9ef5beca864050f090a790

(15515)

on September 21, 2012
at 05:33 PM

Jamie, but where does this fructose come from? Did you know that most fructose is now made from something like corn syrup (or something artificial). They should have tried different sources for their fructose.

Bb3d1772b28c02da2426e40dfcb533f5

(5381)

on September 21, 2012
at 08:01 AM

Worth noting that glucose did still promote weight gain, but subcutaneous fat (the better kind) and it did raise triglycerides a little. But overall thats alot better than visceral fat, insulin insensitivity and messed up blood lipids (including LDL)

A2c38be4c54c91a15071f82f14cac0b3

(12682)

on September 21, 2012
at 09:40 PM

Sorry VB, I meant that reply for Jamie. But to echo CD, I think that study used refined sugars without any residual phytochemicals that might skew the results.

3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7

(26217)

on September 21, 2012
at 06:19 PM

VB, fructose is fructose. No matter where you get it, it's C6H12O6. Honey is different. Depending on the bees, the flowers, etc it has chemically different compounds.

F5a0ddffcf9ef5beca864050f090a790

(15515)

on September 21, 2012
at 06:08 PM

True, but, again, fructose in fruits and fructose from a bad in your grocery store are different. That's what I am trying to say - maybe I am not explaining it right.

F5a0ddffcf9ef5beca864050f090a790

(15515)

on September 22, 2012
at 06:07 AM

@CD - I think of it differently. I bet if there are studies comparing digestion of fructose from fruits with fructose from another source (same amount), the digestion would be completely different.

Bb3d1772b28c02da2426e40dfcb533f5

(5381)

on September 22, 2012
at 03:41 AM

Honey isnt just fructose either, it has maltose and galactose, and its also got insulin like compounds. I will happily veiw honey as a quite different best (not to say excess honey still doesnt promote visceral fat though, its just less likely to reduce insulin sensitivity IMO)

A2c38be4c54c91a15071f82f14cac0b3

(12682)

on September 22, 2012
at 06:43 PM

But mostly, it just seems very reductionist to say sucrose will produce the same negative effects as free fructose. Things are rarely just the sum of their parts in nutrition.

A2c38be4c54c91a15071f82f14cac0b3

(12682)

on September 21, 2012
at 05:55 PM

Yes, but this study was fructose versus glucose, not sucrose versus glucose. There are multiple reasons why fructose alone may cause problems that its combination with glucose may ameliorate. This is the type of study I was specifically trying to avoid.

A2c38be4c54c91a15071f82f14cac0b3

(12682)

on September 22, 2012
at 06:39 PM

Jamie: Here's a few 1) Glucose improves fructose absorption. If fructose alone is malabsorbed, it could contribute dysibiosis and bacterial toxin production. Adding glucose (as in sucrose) would likely not cause this. 2) Fructose causes a minimal insulin response, sucrose causes a much larger one. Since insulin upregulates AGE detoxifying proteins, fructose alone would thus may more likely to cause glycation. In fact, insulin has many effects that should be accounted for.

Bb3d1772b28c02da2426e40dfcb533f5

(5381)

on September 22, 2012
at 03:39 AM

It might skew the results, true, if you want to analyze say, fruit, or honey (fruit has fibre, slowing absorbtion, glucose speed up absorbtion of fructose etc etc), but I think that despite any differences, fructose in whatever form will still have these effects, it just _might_ be a little ameliorated in whole foods. IDK about sucrose being much different tho. Its not like glucose produces opposite results, just more neutral ones (and it improves fructose absorbtion). Why do you think sucrose will be alot better than fructose (u say "multiple reasons" id like to hear em)?

3
A2c38be4c54c91a15071f82f14cac0b3

(12682)

on September 25, 2012
at 09:45 PM

Okay, here are a few things I looked at:

Triglycerides

I found a few studies that suggest sucrose raises triglycerides compared to starch, including these two:

  1. http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/32/8/1659.full.pdf+html

  2. http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/43/3/419.full.pdf+html

Since sucrose doesn't increase HDL, this might be bad because it would mean an increased ratio of triglycerides to HDL, which appears to be a marker of heart disease risk:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2664115/

However, I also found three studies which had slightly different findings than the first two:

  1. http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/20/2/131.short

  2. http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/67/6/1186.full.pdf+html

  3. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0002934383904448

  4. http://www.cabdirect.org/abstracts/19701405139.html;jsessionid=9D9C922BCA212D22D9F5D614C32B66C2

In the first study, when starch replaced sucrose in the diet of 5 subjects, triglycerides increased in 3 subjects and decreased in the other 2. Interestingly, the patients with the highest trigs were the ones who saw decreases on the starch diet. In the other three studies, no significant differences in triglcyeride concentrations were seen between sucrose and starch or maltose (which is form of glucose).

So sucrose may increase triglycerides compared to starch, or it may do nothing or even decrease them.

Exercise

I also found some studies on the effects of glucose and sucrose during exercise:

  1. http://ukpmc.ac.uk/abstract/MED/2733576

  2. http://jap.physiology.org/content/90/3/903.long

  3. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1406206

The first study gave twelve subjects water with sucrose, glucose, or fructose during 115 minutes of exercise on stationary bikes. Sucrose and glucose produced equal effects on things like cortisol levels, cycling speed, perceived exertion, and gastronomical distress. Fructose, meanwhile, performed poorly by comparison.

The second study gave 10-14 year old boys either water, glucose, or a 50-50 mixture of glucose and fructose during exercise (also on stationary bikes). The glucose and glucose-fructose both outperformed the water on things like VO2 and time to exhaustion, with no significant different difference between the two (actually, only the fructose-glucose group had a time to exhaustion that was significantly greater than water).

Finally, the third study is a review article that concluded "No apparent differences exist between glucose, sucrose, or maltodextrins in their ability to improve (exercise) performance. Ingesting fructose during exercise, however, does not improve performance and may cause gastrointestinal distress".

I also found some studies on sucrose and glucose on glycogen levels:

  1. http://ukpmc.ac.uk/abstract/MED/3316904

  2. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22394348

  3. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1901662

The first study fed subjects various sugar containing drinks during exercise and found that sucrose and glucose refill muscle glycogen to an equal degree (sucrose filled glycogen more, but it wasn't statistically significant).

The second study gave soccer players drinks containing glucose, a mixture of 66% glucose and 33% fructose, or a placebo during exercise. No differences were observed between the glucose and glucose-fructose groups, although the glucose-fructose group had greater exercise capacity and higher post workout glycogen levels, the difference wasn't statistically significant.

Finally, the third study is a review article which concluded "Ingestion of glucose or sucrose results in similar muscle glycogen resynthesis rates".

So it looks like, at least for exercise, sucrose and glucose appear to be equal.

Body Weight

I found two studies which suggest sugar does not differ from starch for weight loss and weight maintenance when calories are equal:

  1. http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/65/4/908.full.pdf+html

  2. http://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org/content/55/12/3566.long

In the first study, subjects were placed on isocaloric low calorie diets for weight loss. One diet contained 43% of calories as sucrose while the other diet replaced that sugar with starches such as bread and rice. At the end of the diet trial, both groups lost an equal amount of weight (including an equal amount of belly fat loss) and no difference in energy expenditure were found.

In study number two, subjects were given equal calorie diets containing either 10% or 25% sucrose, with the difference being made up largely by starch. An insignificant amount of weight was lost, with no difference between the two groups. Once again, when calories and nutrients are controlled, the effects of sugar and starch on body weight appears to be the same.

Also, energy expenditure has been shown to increase more after consuming sugar than consuming starch:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8843178

So sucrose does not appear to have any worse effects on weight than starch during weight loss and weight maintenance when calories are equal.

Insulin Resistance

I found some studies which saw mixed effects of the exchange of sugar and starch:

  1. http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/32/11/2206.full.pdf+html

  2. http://www.cabdirect.org/abstracts/19701405139.html;jsessionid=9D9C922BCA212D22D9F5D614C32B66C2

  3. http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/67/6/1186.full.pdf+html

In the first study, sucrose appeared to cause worse effects on insulin resistance than starch, although I think the effect looks rather small. In the second study sucrose again appeared to worsen insulin resistance as it also apparently increased blood glucose levels (I cant find the full text for this study, so I don't have the details). Still, the third study found no such effect on blood glucose levels or apparent insulin resistance between sucrose and starch.

So it does appear that sugar may be worse for insulin resistance than starch, but its hard to say how strong of an effect it is.

Conclusion

These were but a few variables I look, but I was honestly pretty surprised that starch didn't outperform sucrose more significantly. It does look like starch came out ahead, but to the degree I would have expected. I've come to the conclusion that fructose gets way over demonized when an equal or greater amount of glucose comes along with it.

742ff8ba4ff55e84593ede14ac1c3cab

(3536)

on September 25, 2012
at 11:45 PM

Nice finds......

2
543a65b3004bf5a51974fbdd60d666bb

(4493)

on September 23, 2012
at 10:54 PM

I think you already have these links from another post, but i can't find it now, so i'll put them up just in case.
Not sure how relevant they are to your question, but there may be some helpful bits & pieces in there.
& it is only applicable to a diet that is deficient in choline and methionine (i think).
(& they are studies on rodents).

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2739762/ "Dietary sucrose is essential to the development of liver injury in the methionine-choline-deficient model of steatohepatitis"
"Overall, the results indicate that dietary sucrose is critical to the pathogenesis of MCD-mediated steatohepatitis"

& discussed here http://blog.cholesterol-and-health.com/2010/11/sweet-truth-about-liver-and-egg-yolks.html & here http://blog.cholesterol-and-health.com/2010/11/they-did-same-thing-to-lab-rats-that.html

543a65b3004bf5a51974fbdd60d666bb

(4493)

on September 23, 2012
at 11:15 PM

another fatty liver study http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2805058/ "Comparison of free fructose and glucose to sucrose in the ability to cause fatty liver"

543a65b3004bf5a51974fbdd60d666bb

(4493)

on September 23, 2012
at 11:13 PM

another study http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2805058/ "Comparison of free fructose and glucose to sucrose in the ability to cause fatty liver"

543a65b3004bf5a51974fbdd60d666bb

(4493)

on September 23, 2012
at 11:02 PM

just found what put me on to these articles, it was actually your post here http://paleohacks.com/questions/150900/hack-this-research-does-mct-cause-fatty-liver-disease/150925#150925

A2c38be4c54c91a15071f82f14cac0b3

(12682)

on September 23, 2012
at 11:46 PM

Thanks for the answer daz. Interesting stuff for sure, it does look sucrose can cause steatosis under specific conditions. In rodents at least. I don't have studies to support this, but I expect you'd see the same thing in humans, but you'd have to replicate many of the diet parameters (e.g. low choline, low protein, nutrient poor, high sugar, high pufa). Still, many people in the US likely fit such criteria.

2
96440612cf0fcf366bf5ad8f776fca84

(19413)

on September 21, 2012
at 10:45 AM

Doesn't matter - we break down sucrose using an enzyme called sucrase.

Sucrase breaks sucrose down into glucose and fructose in the presence of water and acid (available in via stomach and digestive tract). In the end, if you eat sugar, it'll get converted into glucose, and fructose. It's (almost) the same as eating them separately. I say almost because if you eat them separately, they'll just get less processed, so you'll use less enzymes to absorb them.

So the fructose will still have the same effect it normally does on your liver.

You'll be hard pressed to find any commercial products sweetened with dextrose (glucose) vs plain sucrose, (or worse high fructose corn syrup, agave syrup, etc.)

Best to avoid the whole thing by not ingesting the stuff.

A2c38be4c54c91a15071f82f14cac0b3

(12682)

on September 22, 2012
at 06:57 PM

Jamie, do you know of any sources where I could read about this fructose rate limit? I'm just trying to be educated and want to evaluate things as fairly as possible. I don't actually eat much fruit, maybe a banana and an orange or two a day. Sometimes some honey in my morning tea.

Bb3d1772b28c02da2426e40dfcb533f5

(5381)

on September 22, 2012
at 03:46 AM

^ I would _guess_ that the body is evolved to handle smaller amounts of fructose. The fructose rate limit is evidence of this, and how its stored. Thus, i would _guess_ that when it comes to fructose its about quantity, in terms of how it effects you health. Is there a reason why you want to know (ie do you eat alot of fruit, or are you thinking about the health of fruit eating)

A2c38be4c54c91a15071f82f14cac0b3

(12682)

on September 21, 2012
at 06:00 PM

Many fruits contain sucrose or free fructose and glucose in almost equal amounts. My question is whether this type of sugar (not sugar sources with large amounts of free fructose relative to glucose) has been shown to be bad, at least compared to glucose alone, like many tubers. So far no one has presented any evidence of this.

Bb3d1772b28c02da2426e40dfcb533f5

(5381)

on September 30, 2012
at 10:05 PM

Well I read about it on wikipedia, under fructose (as well as in fodmaps related material). But the wiki reference for that is no longer active.

1
A2c38be4c54c91a15071f82f14cac0b3

(12682)

on September 23, 2012
at 08:14 PM

I found a few studies that suggest sucrose raises triglycerides compares to starch, including these two:

  1. http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/32/8/1659.full.pdf+html

  2. http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/43/3/419.full.pdf+html

Since sucrose doesn't increase HDL, this might be bad because it would mean an increased ratio of triglycerides to HDL, which appears to be a marker of heart disease risk.

However, I found another study which had slightly different findings:

  1. http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/20/2/131.short

When starch replaced sucrose in the diet of 5 subjects, triglycerides increased in 3 subjects and decreased in the other 2. Interestingly, the patients with the highest trigs were the ones who saw decreases on the starch diet.

So sucrose may increase triglycerides compared to starch, but it may even decrease them.

I've as of yet not been able to find much else, but I'm still looking. Anyone else have evidence that sugar is worse than starch?

0
1edb06ded9ccf098a4517ca4a7a34ebc

on September 23, 2012
at 10:11 PM

This doesn't really answer your question very well, but anecdotally and also observationally, a given amount of starch seems to preferable to a given amount of fruit, ceteris paribus, when one has both body composition (maximizing the muscle/body fat ratio) and glycolytic performance (such as weight training and sprinting) in mind. I say this only based upon personal experimentation as well as speaking personally with some prominent fitness and modeling professionals.

0
3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7

(26217)

on September 21, 2012
at 11:43 AM

Why does it matter? With Glucose we get subcutaneous fat. With sucrose we get visceral fat. So putting them together in a ratio i.e. sucrose 50/50 you'd see the same amount of fat, but less visceral fat.

A2c38be4c54c91a15071f82f14cac0b3

(12682)

on September 21, 2012
at 09:51 PM

Thanks for the links, CD.

3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7

(26217)

on September 21, 2012
at 06:25 PM

Oh. I see you are confused because you think that something in glucose might reduce the affects fructose as sucrose is a chemically bonded glucose and sucrose . Good question, but it is not the case. This study shows the effect of each fructose and glucose: http://www.jci.org/articles/view/37385. And this study shows that sucrose causes fat storage in both areas: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22205311

3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7

(26217)

on September 21, 2012
at 06:14 PM

evidence of what? The fact that Glucose and Sucrose cause us to store fat differently?

A2c38be4c54c91a15071f82f14cac0b3

(12682)

on September 21, 2012
at 06:01 PM

Could you share your evidence of this?

Answer Question


Get FREE instant access to our
Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!