4

votes

Another fructose question. What's your take on this study posted by Chris Masterjohn?

Answered on August 19, 2014
Created May 31, 2011 at 4:49 PM

Chris Masterjohn just tweeted "50-70g/day natural fructose from fruit superior to low-fructose diet." with this link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21621801

What is your take on this? The abstract states that the diets were calorie restricted so that may not play well with eating in equilibruim or during mass-gain. In addition, this is a short term study and the major point was that weight loss was significantly greater, but no other markers are mentioned as being different.

100fd85230060e754fc13394eee6d6f1

(18696)

on May 31, 2011
at 06:07 PM

I think you misunderstand mike's beef. He is not saying that fructose in fruit doesn't have a different effect than fructose in another vehicle, only that the fructose itself is the same fructose as any other fructose. Therefore calling it "natural fructose" is misleading. "Fructose as part of its natural food source" or something like that would be more accurate, though certainly cumbersome.

1ec4e7ca085b7f8d5821529653e1e35a

(5506)

on May 31, 2011
at 05:59 PM

Okay good catch. That is what I meant it just didn't come out right.

510bdda8988ed0d4b0ec0b738b4edb73

(20898)

on May 31, 2011
at 05:50 PM

Yes, how it's delivered can matter, but how it's sourced doesn't. Like I said, it's probably better to get your fructose from the apple because there's fiber and stuff there. But the "fructose" itself is the SAME fructose that's in HFCS.

4781cf8ae1bfcb558dfb056af17bea94

(4359)

on May 31, 2011
at 05:44 PM

You couldn't be more wrong. Your instinct is intelligent and is shared by many a food scientist who spend all their time dividing whole foods into fractions. It turns out it does matter how the fructose or the vitamin is delivered. For example, an apple comes with polyphenols, pectin and other fibers, vitamins and minerals. Pure fructose is naked and ready to react. Nutritionalism is bankrupt

4781cf8ae1bfcb558dfb056af17bea94

(4359)

on May 31, 2011
at 05:44 PM

You could be more wrong. Your instinct is intelligent and is shared by many a food scientist who spend all their time dividing whole foods into fractions. It turns out it does matter how the fructose or the vitamin is delivered. For example, an apple comes with polyphenols, pectin and other fibers, vitamins and minerals. Pure fructose is naked and ready to react. Nutritionalism is bankrupt.

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on May 31, 2011
at 05:43 PM

Usually studies that make it through peer-review aren't flawed, only their implication. Indeed less grains more fruit says nothing about the virtues of natural fructose as opposed to starch or less carbs.

1ec4e7ca085b7f8d5821529653e1e35a

(5506)

on May 31, 2011
at 05:40 PM

It just occurred to me that this is a flawed study in that replacing crap food with fruits in near-identical calories and macronutrient ratios caused greater weight loss. It seems obvious to me in the paleo sense that replacing grains with real food would do this.

1ec4e7ca085b7f8d5821529653e1e35a

(5506)

on May 31, 2011
at 04:51 PM

cool I guess that closes the question

  • 1ec4e7ca085b7f8d5821529653e1e35a

    asked by

    (5506)
  • Views
    1.9K
  • Last Activity
    1282D AGO
Frontpage book

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

3 Answers

6
Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on May 31, 2011
at 04:50 PM

Asked him what low-fructosers replaced it with. He said cereal grains and that he would like to see fruits vs. tubers or low carb. I agreed.

1ec4e7ca085b7f8d5821529653e1e35a

(5506)

on May 31, 2011
at 04:51 PM

cool I guess that closes the question

1ec4e7ca085b7f8d5821529653e1e35a

(5506)

on May 31, 2011
at 05:40 PM

It just occurred to me that this is a flawed study in that replacing crap food with fruits in near-identical calories and macronutrient ratios caused greater weight loss. It seems obvious to me in the paleo sense that replacing grains with real food would do this.

1ec4e7ca085b7f8d5821529653e1e35a

(5506)

on May 31, 2011
at 05:59 PM

Okay good catch. That is what I meant it just didn't come out right.

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on May 31, 2011
at 05:43 PM

Usually studies that make it through peer-review aren't flawed, only their implication. Indeed less grains more fruit says nothing about the virtues of natural fructose as opposed to starch or less carbs.

2
510bdda8988ed0d4b0ec0b738b4edb73

(20898)

on May 31, 2011
at 05:35 PM

Well I didn't read the article (and probably won't), but I want to rant a just a little:

"natural fructose" is meaningless. Fructose is a molecule with a specific structure (see the picture on the right: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fructose). I don't care if it came from an apple, from HFCS, or from some evil scientist in a white lab coat. fructose=fructose=fructose.

People seem to have this weird obsession that if it comes from something "natural" (whatever that means), it's healthy and if it comes from a lab it's bad. Granted there may be other benefits from getting fructose "naturally", like the added fiber from the apple, e.g. But that's different than using the term "natural fructose". I see this all the time. Even vitamin supplements (like Vit C) are often labelled "from a natural source". I DON'T CARE! It's still the SAME thing.

Ok, sorry for the minor off topic rant, but to me when I see something like that it automatically lowers the credibility of the content of the article because that leads me to believe that the author(s) don't know their biochemistry. The key to navigating the vast space of nutrition and fitness is to filter what you read by the credibility of the authors.

100fd85230060e754fc13394eee6d6f1

(18696)

on May 31, 2011
at 06:07 PM

I think you misunderstand mike's beef. He is not saying that fructose in fruit doesn't have a different effect than fructose in another vehicle, only that the fructose itself is the same fructose as any other fructose. Therefore calling it "natural fructose" is misleading. "Fructose as part of its natural food source" or something like that would be more accurate, though certainly cumbersome.

4781cf8ae1bfcb558dfb056af17bea94

(4359)

on May 31, 2011
at 05:44 PM

You couldn't be more wrong. Your instinct is intelligent and is shared by many a food scientist who spend all their time dividing whole foods into fractions. It turns out it does matter how the fructose or the vitamin is delivered. For example, an apple comes with polyphenols, pectin and other fibers, vitamins and minerals. Pure fructose is naked and ready to react. Nutritionalism is bankrupt

4781cf8ae1bfcb558dfb056af17bea94

(4359)

on May 31, 2011
at 05:44 PM

You could be more wrong. Your instinct is intelligent and is shared by many a food scientist who spend all their time dividing whole foods into fractions. It turns out it does matter how the fructose or the vitamin is delivered. For example, an apple comes with polyphenols, pectin and other fibers, vitamins and minerals. Pure fructose is naked and ready to react. Nutritionalism is bankrupt.

510bdda8988ed0d4b0ec0b738b4edb73

(20898)

on May 31, 2011
at 05:50 PM

Yes, how it's delivered can matter, but how it's sourced doesn't. Like I said, it's probably better to get your fructose from the apple because there's fiber and stuff there. But the "fructose" itself is the SAME fructose that's in HFCS.

1
Af1d286f0fd5c3949f59b4edf4d892f5

(18452)

on May 31, 2011
at 05:00 PM

Personally, I eat fructose daily in the form of choice whole fruits and sometimes raw honey. I just curb the dose to reasonable amounts and consume fruit in the midst of a nutrient dense, whole foods diet with quality fats and protein.

Been doing this for many months now and staying lean and muscular with virtually zero point zero zero flab. But I do intentinally participate in heavy strength training 3x per week. That may play somewhat of a role as well.

Answer Question


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