Its also not clear to me if the concentrations of fructose used in the study reflect the dynamic range of concentrations of fructose in your tissues during day-to-day life.
 Apparently honey contains ~40% fructose, which about the same as “HFCS42” (a standard 42% fructose corn syrup product).
 I ask this because I’ve read many claims that honey is among the healthiest forms of sugar, with many studies cited that show all sorts of health benefits of honey (at least versus table sugar or HFCS). Is this pseudoscientific bunk that I’ve been mislead to believe?
Here's more about sweeteners on the FODMAP diet (RN reviewed too!)
If I recall, studies of holistic health almost always find that eating fruit is good for you.
I'm sure the quantity and concentration of fructose matters too.
Is that because you are in a low carb diet? A few friends went that way and mentioned some craving for grains
Probably the "best" sugar you can use is date sugar, which is just dried, ground-up dates. But if you really want to eat healthily, then you should eat plants instead of rich foods.
Monkeys banned from eating bananas at Devon zoo
Zookeepers say the stereotypical food actually makes monkeys more aggressive, rots their teeth and can lead to diabetes
Zookeepers said the fruit grown and exported for human consumption have far higher levels of sugar than the ones monkeys would eat in the wild – to the point that it’s bad for their teeth and can lead to diabetes.
Maybe due to selection of larger, sweeter fruit, yes. But processed food contains various sugar variants, including fructose (think "high fructose corn syrup") so fruit isn't the only (not even the main) source of fructose for many.
This is a little mixing of apples and oranges but the high fructose we tend to eat are much higher than primates that eat fruit.
And "high fructose corn syrup" is ... almost pure fructose. Which the human liver can only process a limited amount per day.
Anecdote: a young guy in Freiburg (Germany) got Covid recently and as a result lost his sense of taste afterwards. Now he isn't interested in fast food any more as everything tasty "bland" and can "easily" eat vegetables which he disliked before, even broccoli or Brussels sprouts. Which made him loose more than 50 pounds. Don't get this wrong, it's not an incentive to get Covid, but an example of the effects of abstaining from fast food and soft drinks.
Meanwhile humans can eat concentrated fruits. Imagine picking and eating 100 grapes, vs eating a handful of raisins.
Whole fruit contains vitamins, minerals, fiber, and significant amounts of water. Whole fruit contains intact plant cell walls. It's very important to eat intact plant cell walls, but that's difficult to determine from studies of isolated nutrients. Because of the bulkiness caused by water and fiber in whole fruit, it's difficult to eat large amounts. For example, it takes about four oranges to make a glass of orange juice. Most people would not eat four oranges, but most people could easily drink 1 or more glasses of juice.
The wild fruit eaten by primates has less sugar and more fiber compared to fruit cultivated by humans. Human cultivated foods, including plants and livestock, are much richer compared to wild plants and animals, having more fat, sugar, starch, and calories in general, than what could evolve in the absence of pest control.
Humans have evolved quite differently than other primates. We have a rare ability to digest large amounts of starch, a capability shared almost exclusively with rats and pigs. It's difficult to compare our diets.
Primates consume significant amounts of foliage (leaves and such). You probably should too, green leaves are very excellent for your health.
There's just too much inaccuracies and outright misrepresentation to fit the narrative
Moving from HFCS to table sugar wouldn't change those numbers at all... but if they can blame HFCS it'll ease their guilt that they might be personally responsible for the health consequences of their own diet.
Edit: keep in mind, this is ADDED sugars only. It doesn't include natural sugars, like those found in juice, fruits, etc. The average american consumers an incredible amount of sugar.
While equivalent (calorically) amounts of other sugars certainly isn't good for you, there is a growing consensus that fructose (and thus HFCS, and probably honey, though I'm not aware of studies to the latter effect) is subtly different enough to be worse for most people over the long term, even when taking into consideration that less is needed because it is sweeter.
The ratio of fructose to glucose seems to be one important factor, another is whether the fructose and glucose are bound together into sucrose (it doesn't seem like this paper addresses the latter point).
HFCS and honey both have a higher amount of fructose than glucose, and contain these components mostly in 'free' form, sugarcane and beets produce mostly sucrose, in which the ratio of fructose to glucose is equal and the sugars are mostly bound together into sucrose.
Although the effect of these differences is subtle, other research suggests that chronic consumption of fructose in free form causes changes in insulin response that in turn are responsible for both reduced satiation and weight gain (assuming sufficient calories). Caloric restriction can counteract the weight gain, but not the other changes.
The mechnisms for this have not been entirely clear. This paper describes some changes in cellular preference for some metabolic pathways over others that among other things in turn promote inflammatory responses. As a layman it is tempting to 'connect the dots', as inflammation is (generally, and indirectly) implicated (by other research) in various conditions, but this paper by itself doesn't actually do that. Though it does seem like an important step forward to doing so.
There are a whole host of questions this opens up, like "is this inflammatory response observable in particular tissues (pancreatic, white vs. brown fat, etc.)?", "how is this inflammatory response linked to changes in insulin response (in various tissues)?", "what else does this change in preference for particular metabolic pathways affect?", "what other alternate metabolic pathways might be affected by differences in nutrient ratios, or by the presence or absence of other nutrients?", "Does this help explain the difference in effect of consuming some foods in processed form (eg. Eating fruit vs. drinking juice)?", etc.
Intriguing and suggestive questions to be sure, but as yet unanswered (particularly by this paper in isolation).
I had thought honey was generally regarded as a healthier form of sugar, but now I’m a little confused, since it appears to also be fairly high in fructose (~40%) according to this article:
They are proposing a particular explanation for how fructose over-exposure can lead to inflammation.
That's on top of all the other negative health effects like diabetes, metabolic syndrome, etc.
Avoiding refined sugars in general is a good thing, but removing fructose completely would require not eating any fruits or berries either. The rule of thumb is that whole fruits and berries are okay if you get the plant fiber along with the juice and don't eat too many. Fruit juice drinks and refined sugars should be avoided for sure. Especially corn syrup, honey, and maple syrup.
Right now I only use refined sugar to feed yeast in baking breads. Even then, it doesn't take much. I don't drink fruit juice and only occasionally eat whole fruit as a treat. That seems to work okay so far for me, so take it as you will.
I don't know what else to add. You've gone too far off the path. It's pretty simple what OP wrote. Makes a person think about nature, evolution, adaption, is-this-healthy. Ok?
Yes, there's a good chance that in the caveman days I would only have had honey in rare circumstance when I found a good beehive and had time to process it. It would have been consumed fairly quickly unless I had extremely advanced levels of time preference and self control.
I also would probably have been dead by my mid-30s.
Now, I can get high quality, delicious, dark local honey - a year's supply at a tablespoon a day, more than you need - for less than what the average HN poster makes in an hour.
I don't eat that much of it, usually just use it as a maple syrup substitute for a nice weekend breakfast, and should be able to live until my 80s as long as I keep in shape with some basic exercise on a regular basis.
> You've gone too far off the path.
What path, friend? Where is the path? Where are the markings, and who put them there?
There is no path.
A person says, "honey seems like a rare seasonal treat in nature for most humans. Should we be eating a lot of it?". Same question gets asked about soy, gluten, beef, etc. It's more of a nutrition observation. It just seems like you missed the whole spirit of the thought.
All things in moderation... . A dab of honey in tea once a day can't be that many micromorts.
Most Americans are overweight. I wouldn't call that doing fine.
It looks to be the case that in the case of HFCS high ratios of Fructose to Glucose can cause issues because of excess free Fructose.
If the balance between the two is maintained, things may be less problematic.
Balancing free fructose does not matter because by eating starch, you are already intaking much more glucose than fructose.
To be precise, HFCS-55 is 55% fructose. Commonly used varieties of HFCS include HFCS-42, HFCS-55, and HFCS-90, containing the percentages of fructose indicated by the number, though HFCS-55 is the most commonly used form due to its near-equivalency in sweetness to sucrose.
The amount of free fructose should not be dismissed so readily, as starch requires breakdown into glucose via amylase enzymes, thus "flattening the curve" of its concentration in the blood. Free fructose is rapidly absorbed and the resultant relatively high concentrations induce specific negative effects in the body:
"The activity of fructokinase (KHK) is different from the other hexokinases by virtue of the fact that it induces transient ATP depletion in the cell. The mechanism is due to the fact that fructokinase (KHK) rapidly phosphorylates fructose to fructose-1-phosphate resulting in marked ATP depletion. The activity of fructokinase (KHK) is not subject to feed-back inhibition such as is the case for glucose metabolism, thus the ATP depletion is profound. Since the majority of fructose metabolism occurs in the liver, the effects of this ATP depletion are exerted on numerous important hepatic metabolic processes." (https://themedicalbiochemistrypage.org/fructose-metabolism/)
"In contrast to the anorexigenic effect of hypothalamic glucose metabolism, the metabolism of fructose in the brain exerts an orexigenic effect. ... Since hypothalamic fructose metabolism bypasses this important regulatory step its metabolism rapidly depletes ATP in the hypothalamus. ... Therefore, although glucose and fructose utilize the same signaling pathway to control food intake they act in an inverse manner and have reciprocal effects on the level of hypothalamic malonyl-CoA." (ibid.)
Which is to say, free fructose promotes hunger while starch/glucose metabolism stimulates satiety.
> However, diets containing large amounts of sucrose, high fructose corn syrup, or fructose alone, overwhelm the ability of the small intestine to metabolize it all and under these conditions a significant amount of fructose is then metabolized by the liver and to a lesser extent by other organs such as skeletal muscle. It should be pointed out that the difference between the amount of fructose available from sucrose obtained from cane or beet sugars is not significantly less than that from corn syrup. Corn syrup is somewhat improperly identified as high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) giving the impression that it contains a large amount of fructose. However, whereas the fructose content of sucrose is 50% (since it is a pure disaccharide of only glucose and fructose), the content in HFCS is only 55% and in many cases is actually only 40-45% fructose. The reason that corn syrup (which is all glucose to begin with) is labeled as HFCS is because the glucose extracted from corn starch is enzymatically treated to convert some of the glucose to fructose. This is done in order to make the sugar sweeter which is why it is particularly popular in the food industry. Therefore, any disorder and/or dysfunction (see below), attributed to the consumption of fructose, can be manifest whether one consumes cane or beet sugar, HFCS, or pure fructose such as in honey and most fruits.
The opening assertion was that high-fructose corn syrup is a misnomer. This not a historically accurate statement. Disregarding any erroneous conflation of high-fructose corn syrup with corn syrup (of the only type that existed prior to the invention of what is termed high-fructose corn syrup), high-fructose corn syrup is most assuredly "high" in that it contains a "high" percentage of fructose (40-90%) in comparison with the previously existing corn syrup which contain 0% fructose.
It is spurious to hold to a vague definition of "high" that can only apply to concentrations somewhere in excess of 90%, lest we find ourselves unable to refer to water containing 0.5% lead by weight as having "high" levels of lead.
That said, I concur with the assertion that significant consumption of fructose in any of the commonly available forms, including as a component of sucrose, that do not substantially moderate the rate of its absorption (e.g. such as a dietary fiber-based structural matrix) carry an associated negative health risk.
It is accurate to say that sucrose becomes the equivalent of "HFCS-50" upon contact with the enzymes which line the inside of the small intestine.
- Michael Pollan
Salt isnt bad.
Meat can be fine. Just be careful of its source, frequency of consumption and method of cooking.
Fruit is sugar, which is bad.
Focus on eating a ton of veg, locally sourced when possible, and the most expensive lean proteins you can afford.