Effect of 2 energy-restricted diets, a low-fructose diet vs mod natural fructose diet

[hailtotheking]

The diet including moderate fructose (from fruit) resulted in almost 50% more weight loss than the non fructose diet did. Interesting. Both groups had similar improvements in other health parameters (although the moderate fructose group had slightly greater fat loss, and improvements in blood glucose and insulin sensitivity).

Large sample groups improved strength of the study.

Quote

Metabolism. 2011 May 27. [Epub ahead of print]
The effect of two energy-restricted diets, a low-fructose diet versus a moderate natural fructose diet, on weight loss and metabolic syndrome parameters: a randomized controlled trial.
Madero M, Arriaga JC, Jalal D, Rivard C, McFann K, Pérez-Méndez O, Vázquez A, Ruiz A, Lanaspa MA, Jimenez CR, Johnson RJ,Lozada LG.
Source
Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, Instituto Nacional de Cardiología Ignacio Chávez, Juan Badiano no 1 Col Seccion XVI Tlalpan, México City, 14080, México.

Abstract
One of the proposed causes of obesity and metabolic syndrome is the excessive intake of products containing added sugars, in particular, fructose. Although the ability of excessive intake of fructose to induce metabolic syndrome is mounting, to date, no study has addressed whether a diet specifically lowering fructose but not total carbohydrates can reduce features of metabolic syndrome. A total of 131 patients were randomized to compare the short-term effects of 2 energy-restricted diets-a low-fructose diet vs a moderate natural fructose diet-on weight loss and metabolic syndrome parameters. Patients were randomized to receive 1500, 1800, or 2000 cal diets according to sex, age, and height. Because natural fructose might be differently absorbed compared with fructose from added sugars, we randomized obese subjects to either a low-fructose diet (<20 g/d) or a moderate-fructose diet with natural fruit supplements (50-70 g/d) and compared the effects of both diets on the primary outcome of weight loss in a 6-week follow-up period. Blood pressure, lipid profile, serum glucose, insulin resistance, uric acid, soluble intercellular adhesion molecule-1, and quality of life scores were included as secondary outcomes. One hundred two (78%) of the 131 participants were women, mean age was 38.8 ± 8.8 years, and the mean body mass index was 32.4 ± 4.5 kg/m(2). Each intervention diet was associated with significant weight loss compared with baseline. Weight loss was higher in the moderate natural fructose group (4.19 ± 0.30 kg) than the low-fructose group (2.83 ± 0.29 kg) (P = .0016). Compared with baseline, each intervention diet was associated with significant improvement in secondary outcomes. Reduction of energy and added fructose intake may represent an important therapeutic target to reduce the frequency of obesity and diabetes. For weight loss achievement, an energy-restricted moderate natural fructose diet was superior to a low-fructose diet.

[hailtotheking]

Some good opinions and related articles on this:

Connecting Dots: Fruit is Real Food; Eat It | Free The Animal

Wild and Ancient Fruit: Is it Really Small, Bitter, and Low in Sugar? « Raw Food SOS: Troubleshooting on the Raw Food Diet

[Fred]

Interesting. So it's just fructose on it's own (or mixed into other stuff) that is the devil! Whodda thunk it?!

I have always said no-one ever got fat by eating fruit.

[hailtotheking]

Yes, its possible that there maybe other compounds in fruit (even minimally processed fruit juices) that offset potential issues with pure fructose itself.

TBH, even with pure processed fructose, the evidence is not equivocally negative. If you follow Alan Aragon's AARR, you'll know that he has looked at fructose several times in the past, and there are numerous studies showing that even moderate consumption of processed isolated fructose has no additive negative effects compared to glucose. Fructose naysayers have a habit of cherry-picking studies that support their position.

[James]

VERY interesting.. thanks for the post, man. I've been looking into pure glucose/sugars effect on dieting when eating below maint, so somewhat related. This helps a lot.

[NU_nutrition_TS]

I agree with one of the commenters on Richard Nikoley's blog: That particular study is not the best peg to hang your 'fruit-sourced fructose is OK' hat on! There are too many confounding variables between the diets - especially grain consumption.

[HeatherM]

Quote

Some good opinions and related articles on this:

Connecting Dots: Fruit is Real Food; Eat It | Free The Animal

Wild and Ancient Fruit: Is it Really Small, Bitter, and Low in Sugar? « Raw Food SOS: Troubleshooting on the Raw Food Diet

I'm doing a 30 day trial on my website of fruit friendly paleo eating, which was promoted recently on Richard Nikoley's blog (I'm former raw vegan):

Paleo Diet Experiment: A Former Vegan Gives It A Try for 30 Days

I also did a complete post on the confusion surrounding fructose in real, whole foods versus fructose in high fructose corn syrup & refined fruit juices (as Denise Minger acknowledges in her post, there are virtually no studies on fruit-derived fructose consumption in healthy humans):

Paleo Diet Trial Day 16: A Former Vegan Gives It A Try for 30 Days

[HeatherM]

Quick note to Hailtotheking:

Love those Stone Roses! I've been a fan for about seventeen years now, and was around for their only U.S. concert... :-)

[NU_nutrition_TS]

Quote

I also did a complete post on the confusion surrounding fructose in real, whole foods versus fructose in high fructose corn syrup & refined fruit juices (as Denise Minger acknowledges in her post, there are virtually no studies on fruit-derived fructose consumption in healthy humans)

Are the differences (if there are any) chemical in nature or merely to do with the ratio of glucose to fructose in whole fruit as opposed to HFCS? I think someone on Richard's blog commented on there being two basic forms: gamma and delta with one being the refined form and one being the naturally occurring form (I can't remember which way around that was, assuming it is factually accruate).

As far as the ratio between HFCS and natural fruit, commercially used HFCS is typically 55% fructose and 45% glucose - though this can vary enormously from batch to batch and between manufacturers. In a banana, for example, the breakdown - according to nutritiondata.com - is sucrose 5.4g, glucose 11.2g, fructose 10.9g (with a small amount of maltose). Since sucrose is 50/50 glucose and fructose we can say that a banana would have 13.9g of glucose to 13.6g of fructose - so almost exactly an even 50/50 split. Just looking at a couple more different fruits, this seems to be the prevailing pattern - almost a 50/50 spilt with a slight edge toward glucose over fructose. Interestingly fruits that are not typically that sweet-tasting in their raw natural state - like cranberries - not only have a lower sugar content overall but also a much bigger proportion of glucose to fructose.

[hailtotheking]

Nu, i have seen a fairly wide variety of fructose: glucose ratios reported in HFCS. Alan Aragon did a review of fructose in one of his AARR editions, and 50:50 is pretty common in the industry, effectively making it the same as pre-digested sucrose, and pretty close to the ratio found in alot of fruit. I have not heard of gamma- and delta-forms of fructose before - i will have to look into that.

I personally do not favour tropical fruits that much (despite Minger's claim that our ancestors out of Africa would have been subjected mostly to those kind of fruits), mainly because i find them too sweet, too errosive to my teeth, and lacking in phytonutrieint density compared to colder climate fruits.

What i found interesting in the study was that the moderate fructose group were consuming up to 70g fructose a day. To me, thats alot of fruit!

Denise, i will browse your blog with interest. Yes, the Stone Roses were one of the greatest bands in our lifetime!