No disagreement but as a proportion of the populace you & they would be outside the “norm”. The normal daily energy used for the purposes of what we should consume is 8,700 kj a day, your 30,000 kj puts you more than 3 times the normal. Standard Deviation on those figures would put you well into the top few percentile…very rarefied 
.
6 Likes
This quote from the thread below highlights the misunderstanding about fruit and “sugar”.
When I juice apples, oranges, grapefruits, pineapples etc, the whole fruit (but not the citrus or pineapple skins) goes in, so I can’t really see any difference between whole fruit and juice, other than the juice being mechanically squashed instead of my tongue and teeth squashing it.
When you drink fruit juice (or juiced fruit) it is processed in the upper part of the intestine. This becomes a “sugar” hit and is not good for your health. When you eat a piece of whole fruit (such as an apple) its digestion is delayed until much further down the intestine where the body has the appropriate organisms to process the unhealthy part of the “sugar” which is fructose.
Furthermore, some fruits are higher in fructose than others, hence grapefruit is better for you than pineapple. The sweeter the fruit tastes to you, the less healthy it is.
The only safe sugars are glucose (dextrose), lactose and galactose. Table sugar (sucrose) is 50% fructose and 50% glucose.
What the study is picking up is the inappropriate intake of fructose, which can take many forms. Even the “sugars” in so-called sugar-free manufactured items are not safe, many of them are turned into sucrose as soon as they are ingested.
The easiest way to understand all this (including the chemistry) is to search YouTube for Dr Lustig. Over a number of videos, he explains the issue very well. In the past he has been criticised, however his research is now being backed up by studies such as the one in the BMG.
1 Like
I’d suggest that is highly dependent on how well you chew it. Swallow big chunks and yes I can see it would take longer to break down, but well masticated, it’s not substantially different to juice, and the digestion actually begins in the mouth where enzymes in saliva start to break food down.
Lactose is not really ‘safe’ for the billions of people who are lactose intolerant, as it produces rather unpleasant effects.
4 Likes
It depends on what you mean by ‘safe’. For diabetics glucose is far from it.
You have told us of the evils of fructose before and mentioned Robert Lustig too. Please give us a reference to these studies that now back up his position.
Also do you have a reference for the idea that juice and whole fruit are processed in a different part of the gut and that this has the effect that you say?
4 Likes
We prefer not to juice fresh fruit or vegetables. Why go to all the effort.
Although fresh mangoes, pineapples, oranges are so dripping with free juice it sometimes feels like you are taking a bath in the juice.
Another reason for not juicing, oranges being a great example. The supermarket purchased oranges always seem to produce a fraction of the juice compared with the perfect ones we get fresh from our neighbours trees. Perhaps long term cold storage does not suit oranges. Hint, hint, Woolies and Coles et al.
I haven’t made any claims really. Let me explain.
The background to this and several other threads about food and health is the trend in many developed countries towards obesity and associated diabetes and cardiovascular disease. This trend is of great concern to governments, scientists and doctors. Everybody is looking for the explanation but the answers so far have not been at all clear cut. The main categories of explanation are:
- we overeat
- we under exercise
- we eat the wrong things.
This problem has been taken up with gusto. In some cases by doctors, dieticians and public health officials who have a genuine desire to find the real solution. Even these well intentioned people have not come up with anything conclusive yet. We have been through fashions where all of the explanations have been given. Within the third the group problem has been blamed on both fat and sugar.
Outside those professions we have food growers, manufacturers, lobbyists, authors and journalists and those claiming to be nutritionists and influencers who don’t have much qualification at all but the burning desire to be rich and/or famous. You can hardly find an area of study that is so confused with so many players all vying for attention. Not surprising it is common to find those who lobby for some particular outcome work for a particular industry. Red meat lobbyists work for the beef industry, sugary drink lobbyings work for the soft drink industry etc.
Standing out at the silly end of the scale are those who claim the have found the one magic food that you must always (or never) eat. Some are veiled shills, telling us to eat Amazonian cackleberries because they grow or sell them. Others seem to genuinely reckon they have evidence to support a real solution. The trouble is there is contrary evidence for these too.
My position is that we just don’t know. Pick any explanation you like and there are anomalies. Groups who do no exercise but don’t get fat, groups that have got fatter over time despite eating the same amount of the same things, people who eat lots of fat and stay healthy and those who do the same with sugar.
Like many people I would like to know what the answer is but I don’t believe we have got there. So I am not making a claim that any explanation is right. There is no learned paper that I am aware of that supports my conclusion so I can’t point you to it.
You can’t prove a negative. You can prove there are black swans quite easily if you have a black swan, you can’t prove there are no pink swans by saying that you have never seen a pink swan.
So each time somebody comes up with a possible solution to the problem I ask for their evidence. So far fructose is in the same basket with all the others whose evidence is not conclusive but the indications are it is not a goer. This paper sums it up pretty well. They went looking across all the relevant studies they could find and came up empty. That doesn’t show fructose is not the culprit, it shows they cannot find the evidence that it is.
From the summary
In summary, there is nothing unique about the sugar, fructose. It is harmful when in excess but potentially beneficial when taken in small amounts—providing evidence that it is the excess energy that is causing harm and not some unique metabolic effect. Still, the potential for overconsumption of sugars in form of sugary foods and drinks is substantial, and targeting added sugars as a source of excess calories appears to be a prudent strategy. However, sugar content should not be seen as the sole determinant of a healthy diet.
3 Likes
Diabetes Australia has some useful information on what impacts on blood glucose levels…
https://www.diabetesaustralia.com.au/what-is-diabetes
It appears from this information that glucose in food can directly enter the bloodstream impacting on blood glucose levels…there is a direct link.
4 Likes
Thanks, I’ll give this a read.
Also edited my post above to say fructose not glucose. My mistake.
My point being similar to Jepc, this research did not look into isolating types of sugars from what I can see.
From Sugary drink consumption and risk of cancer: results from NutriNet-Santé prospective cohort:
"Two randomised trials also support the hypothesis that sugary drinks promote visceral fat deposits.’
There is brief mention of a study which found fructose decreased insulin sensitivity in obese humans.
I would be very interested to see further findings based on the BMJ 2019;366:l2408 study that include types of sugars into their study.
4 Likes
Fructose has a different metabolic pathway in the body. Excess Fructose is seemingly more readily converted to fat storage than Glucose (though both are easily deposited as fat).
To read a little more on the pathway for Fructose see:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/fructose-metabolism
In the following look for the section on Lipogenic enzymes in particular
In humans as it doesn’t raise blood glucose levels the same way that glucose does, it doesn’t show up in BSL strip testing, that is why for many years the Diabetic Groups recommended using Fructose sugars in recipes. A low BSL they thought was the complete picture. Study into fructose has overturned this view and fructose is not recommended other than in small quantities such as a single piece of fruit in a diabetic or weight loss diet. Fructose is more likely to raise triglycerides and lactate levels. As it doesn’t use the insulin to get into cells it also has an insulin lowering effect on the body, which can boost glucose BSL levels at the same time if large amounts of fructose are circulating…fructose is mostly hepatically broken down, with small amounts via the kidneys.
5 Likes
This may be so but it does not follow that fructose makes you fatter. The study I linked about did a meta analysis of substitution studies (where fructose is substituted for the same calorific value of other sugars) and found no effect. Sadly this pattern is quite common regarding single food substance studies, the evidence is inconclusive.
3 Likes
Indeed, and I notice many of the studies demonising sugars, and in particular fructose, seem to be focusing on those whose calorific intake exceeds their requirements, hence they eventually become overweight or obese, plenty of studies show that obesity is a known cancer risk.
There is no doubt that sugars can be bad for health (and teeth), a walk down the main street of any town or city makes that very obvious these days. As previously posted in the Choice Community, things have changed over the decades- when I was at school, there might have been 1 or 2 fat kids in a class, everyone else was a reasonable weight, sadly, we seem to be heading to the inverse of that.
3 Likes
The link to cancer from 100% friut juice study may not be necessarliy come from the fruitcose or succrose in friut, but from the pesticide residues the fruit may contain if not treated properly prior processing. Has the study included the pesticide analysis in these juices?
1 Like
While there could be minor pesticide residues present in any food products, the level of pesticide residues in Australia will most likely be under the limits set by the regulators to ensure food safety.
It is possible that in other countries where the study was undertaken, they don’t have the same standards which apply in Australia. If this was the case, then there would also need to be evidence that the residual pesticide concentrations were at levels which would pose a health risk, and that this health risk was associated with an increase in the risk of cancer. This is likely to be outside the scope of the study.
It is also worth noting that many years ago I read a study looking at the health impacts of high consumption of some vinegar, in particular, some fermented dark Chinese rice vinegar. I recall that this study, which I have been unable find yet, found a correlation in relation to high levels of vinegar intake and some stomach related conditions including cancer. I can’t recall if the acid or other components was the potential causal agent…but is it was the acid component, this might also explain why there is increased risks of cancer from fruit juices, most of which are high in natural fruit acids.
3 Likes
Slightly OT, but worth the mention is that grapefruit, tangelos, pomelos and seville oranges can change the effectiveness of a range of different medications either by making them more or less effective than intended … the following link gives an overview …
https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/grapefruit-juice-and-some-drugs-dont-mix
4 Likes
I tend to disagree, it should have benn included in the scope of the study if it causes an interference in the final outcome.
With scientific research, a hypothesis is tested. These studies are not open ended and do not consider every possible variable which may exist. In most causes, research is undertaken to limit the number of variables and to focus on the key ones being tested.
There has been a significant amount of previous work by other researchers on the presence of pesticides in fruit juices. The research undertaken also determines the concentrations of any pesticides (if they exist) and whether these levels are higher than established threshold levels for foods. The effects on human health at elevated concentrations of various chemicals, including pesticides, has also been undertaken for most commonly used chemicals/pesticides.
The authors were not and were rightly not trying to find a link as it would repeat established research already done by others. The purpose was to test the sugary drink consumption and risk of cancer hypotheses. Fruit juice falls into the sugary drink classification along with a other high sugar beverages. Fruit juice was not the primary focus of the research.
There is no point in introducing a sugar tax - people who unaware of their health risks will still purchase them. The sugar content needs to be lowered. Once you give up sugar you don’t need it anymore your taste buds change.
1 Like
I agree that people will still purchase them.
Although personally, I think tax plays a strong part in reducing public consumption of dangerous products and needs to play a bigger role in the consumption of known carcinogenics.
Tax - in tandem with strong awareness campaigns - has helped reduce the usage of tobacco products in Australia. If the same tactics are applied to foods with known cancer risks, I think we could all benefit.
6 Likes
There is quite a lot of evidence that price does influence the rate of purchase of such items and that it has nothing much to do with health awareness. That is not to say that we ought to rely totally on price to change behaviour.
4 Likes
Proper packaging labeling, a sugar tax and public education will have a major effect on sugar consumption.
1 Like
