Comparing fructose- and glucose-sweetened beverages
Overweight and obese subjects consumed glucose- or fructose-sweetened beverages, and researchers from the US and Japan compared the effects.
Here are their findings, and the potential political significance of this research.
First, the details.
- 32 overweight and obese adult men and women were observed for 10 weeks.
- They drank beverages sweetened with glucose or fructose that accounted for 25% of their daily calorie intake.
And, the results.
- Participants in both groups put on about the same amount of weight.
- Fasting triglyceride blood levels increased 10% with glucose but not with fructose.
- Changes recorded with fructose only
- Increased belly fat
- Production of fat by the liver
- aka hepatic de novo lipogenesis (DNL)
- Increased markers of altered lipid metabolism (eg, apoB, LDL [bad] cholesterol)
- Increased concentrations of remnant-like particle–triglyceride and –cholesterol
- Newly proposed risk factors for heart disease
- Increased fasting blood sugar and insulin levels
- Decreased insulin sensitivity
The bottom line?
The authors concluded, “Dietary fructose specifically increases DNL, promotes dyslipidemia, decreases insulin sensitivity, and increases visceral adiposity in overweight/obese adults.”
An accompanying editorial provides perspective. “While these symptoms are telltale signs of metabolic syndrome, which raises a person’s risk of heart attack, we still don’t know what the long term implications of fructose consumption on such a risk might be.”
4/23/09 20:30 JR
Dr Peter J. Stanton said:
on April 29, 2009 at 1:40 am
This study compares fructose with “glucose”? I don’t think I have ever seen a commercial beverage that was sweetened with glucose. Could they mean “sucrose” which is a disacharide made up of glucose and fructose?
JR said:
on April 29, 2009 at 10:07 am
The authors agree. “Foods and beverages in the US are typically sweetened with sucrose (50% glucose and 50% fructose) or high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS), which is usually 45%–58% glucose and 42%–55% fructose, rather than pure glucose or fructose.”
However, the authors’ objective was to compare the biological effects of glucose and fructose. Thus, the need to separate the two.
Regular readers of this blog may have noticed that I’ve started to focus on food politics, here, here, and here.
Writing in the Milbank Quarterly, Drs. Kelly Brownell and Kenneth Warner from Yale and the University of Michigan, respectively, see significant similarities in the actions of “Big Tobacco” 50 years ago and what “Big Food” is doing today in response to concern that their products cause harm.
These authors believe, “Because obesity is now a major global problem, the world cannot afford a repeat of the tobacco history, in which industry talks about the moral high ground but does not occupy it.”
Just as healthcare professionals and their organizations were exposed to data that influenced them to take a stand against smoking, we are beginning to see a similar effort on both sides of the fast food controversy.
I’m not sure the two are comparable, but as a healthcare professional, it’s interesting and worthwhile to stay abreast of these issues.
JR