Jump to content


Fructose Free DietAnyone else suffer from fructose malabsorbtion?


  • You cannot reply to this topic
30 replies to this topic

#1 Rell

    veryCoolRunner

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 329 posts
  • Joined: 28-April 08
  • Sex:Female
  • Location:Oakleigh

Posted 28 April 2008 - 08:35 PM

About a year ago I was diagnosed with fructose malabsorbtion as well as lactose intollerance.  At first it was difficult to change my diet but have found that the past year I have felt the strongest, fittest and most healthiest of my life.  

Fructose - for those of you who don't know - is found in a range of foods, specifically apples, pears, honey, onions, wheat and a variety of other fruit and vegies but they are the main ones.  I just want to know if there are any others out there with fructose malabsorbtion, and if so how long have you had it?  It is relatively unknown and many food labels do not yet highlight if fructose is included which makes it somewhat difficult.

I am trying to change my diet up a bit lately and would love some recipes if there is anyone with some ideas - e.g. snacks and main meals in particular.  I have been to a dietician who has given me some ideas but just wanted to see what others thought???

Any suggestions or ideas would be greatly appreciated.

Cheers.

Support our Australian advertisers:

#2 Sunset

    1000-club gold-rated CoolRunner

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,800 posts
  • Joined: 26-June 07
  • Sex:Female
  • Location:Brisbane

Posted 28 April 2008 - 09:07 PM

I thought for a while that I had fructose malabsorption, but I think it is IBS (which is another term for not really knowing what is wrong with me).

#3 Rudolf

    1000-club gold-rated CoolRunner

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,643 posts
  • Joined: 25-August 05
  • Location:Boronia-Melbourne

Posted 29 April 2008 - 11:24 AM

fructose - in simple term is sugar of the fruit.

I had an idea, that fructose is not in honey and not in grains like wheat etc.

I would like to know, how the docs come up with the malabsorbtion theory.

It is not absorbing where ?.

Are the docs saying that the fructose You eat comes undigested out of You bottom end ?


were they analyzing teh samples regularly to come up with it ?


On the more general note- the sugar probs are usually related to fat in teh blood or fatt saturated pancreas, etc.

The fatty blood bloks teh glucose molecules in the blood to beeing found by insulin etc.


If we are talking about absorbtion of blood sugar into cells tissue that is different topic and again related to fat.

I would need to know the whole picture to give You any detailed hints.

What woyuld happen if for 3 days You eat only watermelon, grapes and some other raw fruit ?

Would You get any energy out of it, or would You starve as nothing will be absorbed ?

#4 Ellie80

    1000-club gold-rated CoolRunner

  • Staff
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,034 posts
  • Joined: 20-January 05
  • Sex:Female
  • Location:Sydney

Posted 29 April 2008 - 11:26 AM

there is an article on this very topic in the current Runners World!

#5 Rell

    veryCoolRunner

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 329 posts
  • Joined: 28-April 08
  • Sex:Female
  • Location:Oakleigh

Posted 29 April 2008 - 11:40 AM

Rudolf - I had a number of tests with the doctor after having symptoms of IBS for months and couldn't work out what the cause was, so basically after having blood tests to test for coeliac disease (of which I don't have) I then had what they call hydrogen breath tests to test how well I can cope with both lactose and fructose.  The tests came out positive for both of these so in order to improve the symptoms of IBS I have changed my diet dramatically to eliminate foods with lactose and fructose in them.  I went off them completely and noticed a massive difference with only a very few times where I would have any type of reaction, so it was a great help!  

I have seen a sports dietician to make sure I am still getting the right amount of nutrients etc. for the level of physical activity I am doing as well as getting a few different ideas for alternative foods etc.  The thing with intolerances is that they are not like allergies, I will not have any MAJOR effects like possible death from eating these foods, but they do make me extremely uncomfortable and a lot of the time in severe pain after eating things like onions or honey.  So, I CAN eat these foods if I want to but I just have to understand the consequences if I do, so it is my choice to stay away from these foods when I can because I love having no symptoms at all, which then provides me with so much more energy to keep striving towards my fitness goals - before I was very lethargic and not physically active at all.

Hope that provides a bit of background for you - I would love to hear of others with the same...

Oh, and Ellie I will check out the Runners World too, thanks for that.

#6 brizza

    1000-club gold-rated CoolRunner

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,287 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 06
  • Sex:Male
  • Location:sydney

Posted 29 April 2008 - 11:41 AM

hi rudi,fructose is avery simple sugar and is almost the next one up in complexity from alcohol,it has to be absorbed in the gut and then transported for conversion to glucose so there is a whole cascade of enzymes,cells and processes involved in turning it into energy,lactose is another sugar which can go wrong,i don't know much about this but i believe intolerance and malabsorption of fructose presents in the same way as lactose intolerance,the undigested fructose ferments into gas and horrible chemicals and causes pain,bloating etc

Edited by brizza, 29 April 2008 - 11:44 AM.


#7 Rudolf

    1000-club gold-rated CoolRunner

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,643 posts
  • Joined: 25-August 05
  • Location:Boronia-Melbourne

Posted 29 April 2008 - 12:48 PM

hi Brizz, thats waht I mean,

the processed foof over the years very likely kills various types of enzymes, so suddenly at least 1 enzyme type is missing.

The wrong fats are clugging the blood and tissues, and there is simply no way that sugars - fructose in this case will be found by the surviving enzymes and other little thingies, also the transport into the cells is not possible if the cells walls are formed from inferior damaged fats instead of the supossed nonoxidized omegas 3 and 6.


In my experience and experience lots of other people, the cleaning out the nutrition first on the fat topic brings very quickly spontaneous solution to majority of sugar probs.

Lactose is case on its own, since lactose is packaged in the food with wrong fats anyway, but that is no brainer, to be healthy the best is to be dairy free anyway.


Rell, so what type of food were You advised to eat by nutritionist ?

Edited by Rudolf, 29 April 2008 - 12:49 PM.


#8 Rell

    veryCoolRunner

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 329 posts
  • Joined: 28-April 08
  • Sex:Female
  • Location:Oakleigh

Posted 29 April 2008 - 02:17 PM

Rell, so what type of food were You advised to eat by nutritionist ?
[/quote]

I did get a number of different recipe's but this is a basic example of a daily meal plan for me:

Breakfast - Oats, LSA, Psyllium husks with soy milk
Snack - banana and green tea
Lunch - Tuna/Salmon and salad sandwich with wheat free rye bread
Snack - handful of nuts or rice cakes with avocado & tomato
Dinner - 200gm lean meat/chick, 1-2 cups steamed veg/salad, and 1-2 serves Carbs (e.g. rice, sweet potato, lentils, gluten free pasta)
Supper (although I have never really needed anything after dinner) - fruit such as rockmelon, strawberries or dark chocolate.

The aim for me was to increase my energy intake, iron and fibre as I was low in these areas after I had a dietary analysis.  

I haven't had much variety in my diet so I got a few different ideas like rice paper rolls, lentils, chickpea salads, rofy with buckwheat noodle salads, frittata etc. etc.

As you can see I don't miss out on much really :)

#9 lauraflora

    Newbie

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • 5 posts
  • Joined: 11-April 09
  • Sex:Female
  • Location:Sydney, Australia

Posted 11 April 2009 - 09:25 PM

View Postbrizza, on Apr 29 2008, 11:41 AM, said:

hi rudi,fructose is avery simple sugar and is almost the next one up in complexity from alcohol,it has to be absorbed in the gut and then transported for conversion to glucose so there is a whole cascade of enzymes,cells and processes involved in turning it into energy,lactose is another sugar which can go wrong,i don't know much about this but i believe intolerance and malabsorption of fructose presents in the same way as lactose intolerance,the undigested fructose ferments into gas and horrible chemicals and causes pain,bloating etc


#10 lauraflora

    Newbie

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • 5 posts
  • Joined: 11-April 09
  • Sex:Female
  • Location:Sydney, Australia

Posted 11 April 2009 - 09:34 PM

Hi just thought I would clear up some misinformation regarding fructose.  Sugar is made up of sucrose and fructose, honey is fructose and a small amount of glucose, in fact all sugars are partly sucrose and partly fructose.  all sugars except for fructose are converted by the body into glucose to operate each and every cell in our bodies.  Fructose is diverted from the intestine and immediately sent to the liver where it is processed into fatty acids and dumped into the blood stream where it they locate stationary places to land eg heart, kidneys, pancreas, stomach ... anywhere that has little movement.  they also land on various bumps in arteries and assist build up of plaque in the arteries.

Sugar in any form is pure poison and I can recommend a book called "Sweet Poison" by  David Gillespie.  Its brilliant and he has researched all the information we have never been told.  Its scary, horrifying and I couldn't put it down.

#11 walker1st

    1000-club gold-rated CoolRunner

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,249 posts
  • Joined: 17-November 08
  • Sex:Male

Posted 12 April 2009 - 07:51 AM

I was following fruit free nutrition for months now and am very happy with improvements of my health and fitness

but I was eating honey daily, and while it contains the fructose, the body deals with it very differently
honey is much more than just the mix of fructose-glucose (at least the true honey, not soem supermarkets cheats imposters)

In Mafeton's comming reprint of one of his books, there is special mention about honey, again stating the same - honey is different to other sugar or fructose sources
and is great for health and fitness.

so while my view is - henye yes fruits no,

I had to admitt that last week I was eating few pieces of fruits for enzymes, peaches and oranges
and some apples for pectins,
choosing the apples with lowest sugar content,

but will drop fruits again soon.

good luck everybody:

disclaimer : I do not eat pasta, potatoes or rice at all
(would consider Rice :hi:

#12 Bellthorpe

    草分け

  • Administrator
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,173 posts
  • Joined: 23-October 04
  • Sex:Male
  • Location:Washington DC

Posted 12 April 2009 - 08:08 AM

View Postlauraflora, on Apr 11 2009, 09:34 PM, said:

Sugar in any form is pure poison and I can recommend a book called "Sweet Poison" by  David Gillespie.  Its brilliant and he has researched all the information we have never been told.  Its scary, horrifying and I couldn't put it down.

That's often the case with books designed to induce mass hysteria ...

However, you can profit from the book:

Attached File  sweet_poison.gif   4.31K   30 downloads

Buy new, sell second hand!

If sugar in any form is 'pure poison', the meaning of 'poison' has been re-defined. Perhaps you could let us know the new definition.

Of course it behoves us all to keep our intake of sugar to reasonable levels, just as it does with alcohol, starches, vitamins, and so on.

But 'poison'. Nup.

#13 kathmandu

    wax mystical

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,104 posts
  • Joined: 21-August 07
  • Sex:Female
  • Location:Perth

Posted 12 April 2009 - 10:31 AM

View PostBellthorpe, on Apr 12 2009, 06:08 AM, said:

sugar in any form is 'pure poison'

the first priciple of toxicology is that everything is toxic, in its correct dose.

so i guess yeah sugar is, as is water, if the dose is high enough. i guess they just thought that half of the sentence didnt have relevance.

i think in nutrition there are better choices and poor choices, and we are lucky in that the choice is ours to make as we each see fit (oh except Rell, who has this condition, sorry Rell, this isnt helping you. i had no idea about FM so am glad you posted, cheers)

#14 tim

    1000-club gold-rated CoolRunner

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,727 posts
  • Joined: 26-March 02
  • Sex:Male

Posted 12 April 2009 - 10:51 AM

View Postwalker1st, on Apr 12 2009, 07:51 AM, said:

I was following fruit free nutrition for months now and am very happy with improvements of my health and fitness
................................disclaimer : I do not eat pasta, potatoes or rice at all
(would consider Rice) :hi:

Mr Walker I am fascinated with your journey and can't wait to see where you end up.

On topic I thought a Coast to Kosci finisher had problem with fructose and would be interested in what she does to manage it since she runs so well without it.

#15 walker1st

    1000-club gold-rated CoolRunner

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,249 posts
  • Joined: 17-November 08
  • Sex:Male

Posted 12 April 2009 - 04:12 PM

View PostPsychoChicken, on Apr 12 2009, 10:31 AM, said:

the first priciple of toxicology is that everything is toxic, in its correct dose.

that is a bit missleading, as it can imply, that nothing is really toxic under some critical amount.

while this is view of western medicine, that under specific amount which will not kill You right on the spot or longer term,
there is no issue otherwise.

all substances should be split into 2 groups ;

group 1 is toxic - it is toxic poison in any mi nimum amount, just he very minimum amount does not show up significantly enough on teh body or mind performance to be detectable by western medicine or to be considered dangerous.

group 2 is not poisonous not toxic, the substances are actualy helpfull to health at right amount and it is only teh amount which becomes probelematic.

kinda like drink driving - zero tolerance or under allowable limit.

so what about sugar ?

refined sugar and its derivative alcohol in my view is group 1 - poison toxic

fructose/glucose if part of the honey is group 2 - very healthy in correct amount

#16 tim

    1000-club gold-rated CoolRunner

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,727 posts
  • Joined: 26-March 02
  • Sex:Male

Posted 12 April 2009 - 05:53 PM

View Postwalker1st, on Apr 12 2009, 04:12 PM, said:

that is a bit missleading, as it can imply, that nothing is really toxic under some critical amount.

you did not understand the statement.

#17 walker1st

    1000-club gold-rated CoolRunner

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,249 posts
  • Joined: 17-November 08
  • Sex:Male

Posted 12 April 2009 - 07:20 PM

View Posttim, on Apr 12 2009, 05:53 PM, said:

you did not understand the statement.

Tim, enlighten me.

in my view the word toxity is wrong if used in conection to describe inbalanace of nutrients created by too much of 1 or few nutrients or ingredients

nutrients which are otherwise not toxic.

many times propaganda is using this construct - even clear water is toxic if too much so little bit of preservatives colourings etc is OK if under "safe level "

exactcly intentionaly mixing 2 different concepts to fool customers.

Your turn Tim, but please also explain how You see it, so far You did not offer Your position.

#18 tim

    1000-club gold-rated CoolRunner

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,727 posts
  • Joined: 26-March 02
  • Sex:Male

Posted 12 April 2009 - 07:56 PM

View Postwalker1st, on Apr 12 2009, 07:20 PM, said:

Tim, enlighten me.

I am sorry I did not mean to make the statement mine I was just pointing out that the argument you put forth simply shows that you did really read the post by PC.

I believe she was saying that everything can be toxic given the correct dose and you used it as a politician would as a springboard into your own agenda.

but I believe the thread was really looking for ideas and recipes on fructose free diets so I am sorry for the hijack.

#19 Leethal

    Newbie

  • Forum Member
  • Pip
  • 7 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 07
  • Sex:Male
  • Location:Northcote

Posted 12 April 2009 - 11:07 PM

Hi Rell,

I believe you've had contact with my girlfriend before, she's also fructose intolerant, as well as many other things!! We eat a lot of different things, just following the recipes but omitting onion or concentrated tomato paste and such. We have spag bol, paella, jambalaya, stir frys (the fav at the mo) and burgers. The only area that proves difficult is fueling during long races, but I think Powerade has a mix of more glucose than fructose, so it doesn't cause instant stomach issues like some others!!! I can't remember what her log in is, but if you ever want to give my girlfriend a call then I'm sure she'd be very happy to talk to someone with the same issues she has!!

Lee.

#20 walker1st

    1000-club gold-rated CoolRunner

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,249 posts
  • Joined: 17-November 08
  • Sex:Male

Posted 13 April 2009 - 07:08 AM

Below is an excerpt from the new 5th edition of In Fitness and In Health
by Dr. Phil Maffetone:

Honey – The Real Thing
Perhaps the best sweetener to use is a simple carbohydrate that doesn’t require digestion, is unprocessed and lowest in glycemic index: Honey. I recommend honey for many reasons as discussed below, but in moderation and not to exceed your carbohydrate tolerance.

Honey has been used for centuries as both a sweetener and a remedy, and remains today as the most natural sweetener available. Honey contains a variety of vitamins, minerals and amino acids, including antioxidants. In addition, honey has anti-inflammatory and antimicrobial effects. Recently a large volume of scientific literature has substantiated honey’s therapeutic value, as well as its ability to improve endurance in athletes.

Honey is also perhaps the only carbohydrate food that does not promote tooth decay through acidity. In general, proteins and fats raise salivary pH, making it more alkaline, while carbohydrate foods lower pH, making it more acidic. Honey is the sweet exception — a carbohydrate that may raise pH levels in the mouth. In addition, honey has an overall beneficial effect on oral health due to its antibacterial effect and ability to reduce dextran, a sticky, sugary substance that helps bacteria adhere to the teeth.

Like fruit, honey is primarily a blend of fructose and glucose. Different types of honey have different ratios of each type of sugar. Those that crystallize the fastest are the ones with the highest glucose content, and thus the slightly higher glycemic index. Since fructose has the lowest glycemic index of all sugars, honey with higher fructose content will have the lowest glycemic index. Sage and tupelo honey, for example, are known for their high fructose content, while clover honey has a medium fructose content, and alfalfa honey is higher in glucose.

When shopping for honey, look for a number of attributes. Dark honey may be the most therapeutic and have the most nutrients. Buckwheat honey is said to contain the highest amounts of antioxidants. Raw, unfiltered honey retains more beneficial qualities. Heat, light and filtering remove some of the beneficial properties of honey, so look for raw, unfiltered organic honey. Local honey with these attributes is often the best choice.

A note on Agave. This high fructose natural cactus concentrate has a very low glycemic index. But it lacks the therapeutic benefits that honey contains. Due to its high fructose content, some individuals don’t tolerate it. Intestinal distress is the most common symptom, and in those with high triglyceride levels, high fructose intake may worsen the condition.

#21 lauraflora

    Newbie

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • 5 posts
  • Joined: 11-April 09
  • Sex:Female
  • Location:Sydney, Australia

Posted 13 April 2009 - 02:34 PM

Just to clarify ... After much research I discovered various sources regarding fructose (which is not only in fruit by the way).  Sugar Cane is 50% fructose, honey is 50% fructose.  Its the fructose that is unable to be processed by the body in fact the body is unable to do anything with it so it converts into fatty acids and dumps them directly into the blood stream.  as long ago as the 50s researchers were telling diabetic patients to eat more fructose as it did not trigger an insulin response by the pancreas.  the supressed part of the study carried out on fructose was that while it does not trigger insulin response it was instrumental in the dumping of fatty acids into the blood thereby increasing Cardio Vascular Disease.  when you take a look at the graph from the study both the increase in sugar consumption and cardio vascular disease match exactly in their rise.  while all types of sugars are converted to glucose for energy its the fructose component of all added sugars that is the killer.  

we do need a small amount of fructose to trigger glucose to fire up the cells in our body but we are a nation that is now averaging over 60kg of sugar a year as opposed to 1-2 kgs a year prior to the 50s.

#22 Bellthorpe

    草分け

  • Administrator
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,173 posts
  • Joined: 23-October 04
  • Sex:Male
  • Location:Washington DC

Posted 13 April 2009 - 02:52 PM

I don't suppose you'd care to name the study, and let us know by whom parts of it were suppressed?

#23 walker1st

    1000-club gold-rated CoolRunner

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,249 posts
  • Joined: 17-November 08
  • Sex:Male

Posted 13 April 2009 - 05:19 PM

1. Just 1 can of diet soda raises your risk of diabetes 34%!

An article in the NY Times, February 5, 2008 by Nicholas Bakalar reports on a study published January 22, 2008, by the American Heart Association in its online journal, Circulation.

He reports that the study was conducted for 9 years on more than 9,500 men and women 45 to 64 years of age.

The authors of the study found that eating a diet of predominantly refined grains, fried foods and red meat had a 17% increased risk of increasing cholesterol, blood pressure, and obesity. Readers of this newsletter won't find that surprising.

However, their findings that one, that's right, just one can of diet soda, increased their risk 34%!! That's more than double, folks.

Please pass this information to those you love who drink diet soda.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
how is this relevant here - diet soda is often teh choice of people to avoid sugar, fructose etc...
so relavant here
and yet it is diet soda causing various damage, this is just one mentioned here.

#24 tim

    1000-club gold-rated CoolRunner

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,727 posts
  • Joined: 26-March 02
  • Sex:Male

Posted 13 April 2009 - 05:49 PM

View Postwalker1st, on Apr 13 2009, 05:19 PM, said:

1. Just 1 can of diet soda raises your risk of diabetes 34%!

how can I find my original risk factor?

Maybe it is zero and so 1 soft drink will simply increase zero by 34%.

#25 Leofisio

    veryCoolRunner

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 840 posts
  • Joined: 31-March 08
  • Sex:Male
  • Location:São Paulo - Brazil

Posted 13 April 2009 - 07:11 PM

Now I am happy!

Rudi commenting (and supporting) findings from scientific research!


Well done Rudi! :hi:

Leo

#26 Heids27

    CoolRunner

  • Forum Member
  • PipPip
  • 50 posts
  • Joined: 15-April 09
  • Sex:Female
  • Location:Canberra ACT

Posted 16 April 2009 - 03:44 PM

Interesting thread! My dietician thinks i have fructose malabsorption (after years off wheat and gluten due to really bad IBS and now my symptoms are recurring anyway) so am currently on a restricted diet to see if it improves things....would definitely be keen to chat to others who have this problem!!

#27 lauraflora

    Newbie

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • 5 posts
  • Joined: 11-April 09
  • Sex:Female
  • Location:Sydney, Australia

Posted 16 April 2009 - 08:00 PM

Hi Bellthorpe
sorry for the delayed response I was hunting down the reference.  Professor Yudkin published his findings in 1957 and Yudkin and his team followed up that research during the 60s with investigations of larger populations that showed that the rise in the incidence of heard disease consistently coincided  with the rise in the consumption of sugar and could not be consistently associated with the consumption of fat, whether it was saturated or unsaturated. The real surprise came when Dr Yudkin substituted fructose for sugar in his experiment.  Table sugar (or sucrose) is a combination of two simpler sugars, glucose and fructose.  Yudkin knew that the human body broke sugar into these constitent parts as part of the digestive process and wanted to determine whether either part had more influence on his findings.  the effects of eating sucrose in the quantities we eat are magnified with fructose.  Fructose is the dangerous part, he said.
Dr Yudkin's findings were published in 1972 in a book titled "Sweet and Deadly" and cast aside for those of Dr Keys who touted low fat as the cure all of obesity and heart disease (ref: page 56/57 in "Sweet Poison", David Gillespie).    Take a look at the obesity and heart disease rates over the last 30 years and you will see that we have in fact gotten more obese and more of us a dying of heart disease than ever before.  think about it we are eating more low fat foods but if you look at the ingredients adn there is a load more sugar.
since quitting sugar I have now have pain free hands and elbows and my cholesterol has dropped by half, I have lost 2 inches around my waste and I have lost 3 inches around my back and I've only been sugar free for 3 weeks.  

I am gobsmacked at such great results in just 3 weeks.  Every time I look at chocolate/sweets/cakes/biscuits all I can see is the liver converting fructose to fatty acids and dropping them into my blood stream.  Its horrifying.

Please get your hands on this book ... every reference can be double checked and he has been very accurate.

#28 lauraflora

    Newbie

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • 5 posts
  • Joined: 11-April 09
  • Sex:Female
  • Location:Sydney, Australia

Posted 16 April 2009 - 08:00 PM

Hi Bellthorpe
sorry for the delayed response I was hunting down the reference.  Professor Yudkin published his findings in 1957 and Yudkin and his team followed up that research during the 60s with investigations of larger populations that showed that the rise in the incidence of heard disease consistently coincided  with the rise in the consumption of sugar and could not be consistently associated with the consumption of fat, whether it was saturated or unsaturated. The real surprise came when Dr Yudkin substituted fructose for sugar in his experiment.  Table sugar (or sucrose) is a combination of two simpler sugars, glucose and fructose.  Yudkin knew that the human body broke sugar into these constitent parts as part of the digestive process and wanted to determine whether either part had more influence on his findings.  the effects of eating sucrose in the quantities we eat are magnified with fructose.  Fructose is the dangerous part, he said.
Dr Yudkin's findings were published in 1972 in a book titled "Sweet and Deadly" and cast aside for those of Dr Keys who touted low fat as the cure all of obesity and heart disease (ref: page 56/57 in "Sweet Poison", David Gillespie).    Take a look at the obesity and heart disease rates over the last 30 years and you will see that we have in fact gotten more obese and more of us a dying of heart disease than ever before.  think about it we are eating more low fat foods but if you look at the ingredients adn there is a load more sugar.
since quitting sugar I have now have pain free hands and elbows and my cholesterol has dropped by half, I have lost 2 inches around my waste and I have lost 3 inches around my back and I've only been sugar free for 3 weeks.  

I am gobsmacked at such great results in just 3 weeks.  Every time I look at chocolate/sweets/cakes/biscuits all I can see is the liver converting fructose to fatty acids and dropping them into my blood stream.  Its horrifying.

Please get your hands on this book ... every reference can be double checked and he has been very accurate.

#29 neverrunb4

    CoolRunner

  • Forum Member
  • PipPip
  • 55 posts
  • Joined: 25-August 09
  • Sex:Female
  • Location:north brisbane

Posted 01 September 2009 - 08:57 PM

View Postlauraflora, on Apr 16 2009, 08:00 PM, said:

Hi Bellthorpe
sorry for the delayed response I was hunting down the reference.  Professor Yudkin published his findings in 1957 and Yudkin and his team followed up that research during the 60s with investigations of larger populations that showed that the rise in the incidence of heard disease consistently coincided  with the rise in the consumption of sugar and could not be consistently associated with the consumption of fat, whether it was saturated or unsaturated. The real surprise came when Dr Yudkin substituted fructose for sugar in his experiment.  Table sugar (or sucrose) is a combination of two simpler sugars, glucose and fructose.  Yudkin knew that the human body broke sugar into these constitent parts as part of the digestive process and wanted to determine whether either part had more influence on his findings.  the effects of eating sucrose in the quantities we eat are magnified with fructose.  Fructose is the dangerous part, he said.
Dr Yudkin's findings were published in 1972 in a book titled "Sweet and Deadly" and cast aside for those of Dr Keys who touted low fat as the cure all of obesity and heart disease (ref: page 56/57 in "Sweet Poison", David Gillespie).    Take a look at the obesity and heart disease rates over the last 30 years and you will see that we have in fact gotten more obese and more of us a dying of heart disease than ever before.  think about it we are eating more low fat foods but if you look at the ingredients adn there is a load more sugar.
since quitting sugar I have now have pain free hands and elbows and my cholesterol has dropped by half, I have lost 2 inches around my waste and I have lost 3 inches around my back and I've only been sugar free for 3 weeks.  

I am gobsmacked at such great results in just 3 weeks.  Every time I look at chocolate/sweets/cakes/biscuits all I can see is the liver converting fructose to fatty acids and dropping them into my blood stream.  Its horrifying.

Please get your hands on this book ... every reference can be double checked and he has been very accurate.


Hi All,
I know this thread is a bit 'old' now, but thought I'd comment anyhow.  Lauraflora I read this same book a few weeks ago & it has literally changed my life.  I have indulged in a diet of high fructose for many years without even knowing it, but since reading this book I have quit it.  I don't eat foods now with anymore than about 5g/100g of sugar due to the fructose & have easily cut 90-95% of my previous sugar intake.  Now if I see sugar I think of all the little fatty acids that will float through my arteries if I eat it & while very occasionally I will succumb, I mostly rarely touch the stuff.  THe improvements have been astonishing - I have lost a lot of wt from around my tummy, rarely get headaches & very rarely have any gut issues like I did before (bloating, pain etc).  I have no doubt it works for me.  I still think this is very much a 'taboo' idea though as I have struggled in discussions with other people about the dangers of fructose & so now I don't bother (although my GP has been very supportive).  I just know it works for me & I'm really happy to hear it works for other people (not just David Gillespie!!).

Cheers,
neverrunb4

#30 Sunset

    1000-club gold-rated CoolRunner

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,800 posts
  • Joined: 26-June 07
  • Sex:Female
  • Location:Brisbane

Posted 01 September 2009 - 10:05 PM

I read the 'Sweet Poison' book and didn't get a great deal from it.  It all makes sense, however trying to eat a fructose-free diet would be incredibly difficult as fructose is in so many things.

#31 YumHallucinogens

    veryCoolRunner

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 148 posts
  • Joined: 05-July 07

Posted 02 September 2009 - 01:07 AM

Just clarifying some mixed concepts.

Fructose malabsorption results from overloading the fructose transport system in the small intestine. When too much fructose is eaten at once, the excess passes into the large intestine, where it is fermented by bacteria to produce gas and fatty acids. The more gas, the more discomfort. Fructose malabsorption has similar symptoms to lactose intolerance (gas, bloating), but the causes differ slightly (lack of lactase). The ability to absorb fructose differs from person to person. You have to find your own sweet spot, so to speak.

Fructose that has been absorbed into the bloodstream is further processed in the liver. When liver glycogen stocks are low, fructose is converted into glycogen. When the liver is full or when too much fructose is present at one time, fructose is converted to fat. Also, small amounts of fructose induce the conversion of glucose to glycogen in the liver in the presence of high concentrations of glucose.