Ray has talked and written about fructose being different from glucose in the body's response to them, especially with regard to diabetics. The cause for hyperglycemia is the abundance of free fatty acids in the blood stream, of the polyunsaturated variety, called PUFAs for short.
The presence of PUFAs inhibit the body's tissues from metabolizing glucose, and without the tissues using up glucose being supplied through blood, the blood sugar levels will rise. PUFAs can over time destroy the beta cells in the pancreas, which would render it incapable of producing insulin. Not being able to produce insulin would make it difficult for blood sugar to come down, for which insulin medication is needed.
For individuals who still retain the ability to produce insulin, the increase in blood sugar from glucose intake is followed by an insulin reaction, which causes blood sugar to drop as the blood sugar is converted to fats by the liver. The blood sugar level can be quickly lowered by the insulin response, and this would lead to low blood sugar levels, a condition called hypoglycemia.
Whether a person suffers from hyperglycemia or hypoglycemia, it still points to an inability to hold blood sugar levels within a normal range. This ability affects our health in many ways, as it reflects on our ability to metabolize sugar for energy, which we need for our daily energy needs, as well as for our immunity.
Conventional wisdom has it that fructose is not a healthful to take. We hear of Mercola saying that fructose intake leads to increase in uric acid, and equates that to a bad thing, forgetting to mention that uric acid is an antioxidant. It associates uric acid with arthritis and with gout, but neglecting to mention that people with cancer often have very low uric acid levels.
Ray Peat has nothing but good things to say about fructose. He says that fructose, unlike glucose, can readily be metabolized by the body, even for people whose blood contains plenty of PUFAs. He also says that regular intake of fructose can restore the beta cells in the pancreas that produce insulin.
Yet how many of us has brought this knowledge to use in the real world? For ourselves, and for the people around us who are afflicted with problems of blood sugar control? I was once hypoglycemic, but did not realize I was. I would get fever and flu often, and wonder why I was so weak inspite of the many Shaklee vitamins I was taking. When I don't eat for 3 hours, I would feel sleepy, or my nose would begin to run, or I would have a cough. Taking a piece of candy would only make things worse. It was only when I read a book on hypoglycemia that I took more notice. And when I convinced my primary care physician to let me take a glucose tolerance test (GTT), the 5hr variety, I realized from the graph of the results that I was hypoglycemic. I made that conclusion, by the way, as my doctor looked at the data and told me I was normal, being "within range."
The GTT holds a special place in my heart, as it was this test that put me on my way to health. Yet few people have heard of it. Few use it at all. People just rely on the FBS (fasting blood sugar), but it does little in showing the true state of how well we maintain our blood sugar.
The GTT is done in a diagnostics lab, much in the same place where we have our blood tests taken. It involves taking a preset amount of glucose (75g is what I remember), and taking blood sugar values every hour for 5 hours, starting at 0 hour. A curve is plotted with the x-axis for blood sugar, and the y-axis for time. Based on the shape of the curve, a person can be easily diagnosed as being diabetic, normal, or hypoglycemic, in varying degrees.
It is a very simple test though, and anybody can do it himself. All he needs is to fast for a good 8-9 hours before the test, and take 75 grams of glucose, and use a blood sugar meter (Terumo is one brand) to take his blood sugar level every hour, staring from 0 hr, for 5 hours. Plotting the curve is simple. And interpreting it is as easy as long as you can see. If one is too scared to do it, getting a nurse would help.
I would like to use this test to prove what Ray has been saying about fructose. If what he says is true, that fructose is readily metabolized regardless of a person's ability to metabolize glucose, the GTT curve from fructose intake should come out to be closer to looking like the curve of a person with normal, or healthy blood sugar control.
I would need three subjects (a diabetic, a hypoglycemic, and a person with healthy blood sugar control) to take 2 GTT's each. One test involving glucose, and another test involving fructose.
The GTT curves of each subject would be put side by side and compared, and it would hopefully prove that indeed fructose intake, instead of glucose intake, would be beneficial to persons with blood sugar control issues.
But there is one catch so far. We don't have access to pure fructose. So we would need to do another set of tests for the diabetic and the hypoglycemic. This time, instead of fructose, we would be using real honey, cane sugar, orange juice, and pineapple juice. Honey and cane sugar are half fructose, and pineapple juice has more fructose content that orange juice.
This set of GTT tests would serve to determine whether intake of these substances would be advisable, in terms of whether they will produce more stable blood sugar control in people. Depending on the results of these tests, one could determine whether it would be better to substitute rice intake with intake of say, cane sugar on a caloric equivalent basis.
I go back now to my question of whether you have really applied Ray's thoughts on fructose to heart, to yourself and to the people whom you can help, blood sugar control-wise. If you are able to see the results of such tests, will you be convinced to shift your carb intake to intake of fructose-rich substances? Would you be able to convince family and friends to make the shift? And would it be possible to see some diabetics regain the ability to produce insulin and improve the quality of their life?
The presence of PUFAs inhibit the body's tissues from metabolizing glucose, and without the tissues using up glucose being supplied through blood, the blood sugar levels will rise. PUFAs can over time destroy the beta cells in the pancreas, which would render it incapable of producing insulin. Not being able to produce insulin would make it difficult for blood sugar to come down, for which insulin medication is needed.
For individuals who still retain the ability to produce insulin, the increase in blood sugar from glucose intake is followed by an insulin reaction, which causes blood sugar to drop as the blood sugar is converted to fats by the liver. The blood sugar level can be quickly lowered by the insulin response, and this would lead to low blood sugar levels, a condition called hypoglycemia.
Whether a person suffers from hyperglycemia or hypoglycemia, it still points to an inability to hold blood sugar levels within a normal range. This ability affects our health in many ways, as it reflects on our ability to metabolize sugar for energy, which we need for our daily energy needs, as well as for our immunity.
Conventional wisdom has it that fructose is not a healthful to take. We hear of Mercola saying that fructose intake leads to increase in uric acid, and equates that to a bad thing, forgetting to mention that uric acid is an antioxidant. It associates uric acid with arthritis and with gout, but neglecting to mention that people with cancer often have very low uric acid levels.
Ray Peat has nothing but good things to say about fructose. He says that fructose, unlike glucose, can readily be metabolized by the body, even for people whose blood contains plenty of PUFAs. He also says that regular intake of fructose can restore the beta cells in the pancreas that produce insulin.
Yet how many of us has brought this knowledge to use in the real world? For ourselves, and for the people around us who are afflicted with problems of blood sugar control? I was once hypoglycemic, but did not realize I was. I would get fever and flu often, and wonder why I was so weak inspite of the many Shaklee vitamins I was taking. When I don't eat for 3 hours, I would feel sleepy, or my nose would begin to run, or I would have a cough. Taking a piece of candy would only make things worse. It was only when I read a book on hypoglycemia that I took more notice. And when I convinced my primary care physician to let me take a glucose tolerance test (GTT), the 5hr variety, I realized from the graph of the results that I was hypoglycemic. I made that conclusion, by the way, as my doctor looked at the data and told me I was normal, being "within range."
The GTT holds a special place in my heart, as it was this test that put me on my way to health. Yet few people have heard of it. Few use it at all. People just rely on the FBS (fasting blood sugar), but it does little in showing the true state of how well we maintain our blood sugar.
The GTT is done in a diagnostics lab, much in the same place where we have our blood tests taken. It involves taking a preset amount of glucose (75g is what I remember), and taking blood sugar values every hour for 5 hours, starting at 0 hour. A curve is plotted with the x-axis for blood sugar, and the y-axis for time. Based on the shape of the curve, a person can be easily diagnosed as being diabetic, normal, or hypoglycemic, in varying degrees.
It is a very simple test though, and anybody can do it himself. All he needs is to fast for a good 8-9 hours before the test, and take 75 grams of glucose, and use a blood sugar meter (Terumo is one brand) to take his blood sugar level every hour, staring from 0 hr, for 5 hours. Plotting the curve is simple. And interpreting it is as easy as long as you can see. If one is too scared to do it, getting a nurse would help.
I would like to use this test to prove what Ray has been saying about fructose. If what he says is true, that fructose is readily metabolized regardless of a person's ability to metabolize glucose, the GTT curve from fructose intake should come out to be closer to looking like the curve of a person with normal, or healthy blood sugar control.
I would need three subjects (a diabetic, a hypoglycemic, and a person with healthy blood sugar control) to take 2 GTT's each. One test involving glucose, and another test involving fructose.
The GTT curves of each subject would be put side by side and compared, and it would hopefully prove that indeed fructose intake, instead of glucose intake, would be beneficial to persons with blood sugar control issues.
But there is one catch so far. We don't have access to pure fructose. So we would need to do another set of tests for the diabetic and the hypoglycemic. This time, instead of fructose, we would be using real honey, cane sugar, orange juice, and pineapple juice. Honey and cane sugar are half fructose, and pineapple juice has more fructose content that orange juice.
This set of GTT tests would serve to determine whether intake of these substances would be advisable, in terms of whether they will produce more stable blood sugar control in people. Depending on the results of these tests, one could determine whether it would be better to substitute rice intake with intake of say, cane sugar on a caloric equivalent basis.
I go back now to my question of whether you have really applied Ray's thoughts on fructose to heart, to yourself and to the people whom you can help, blood sugar control-wise. If you are able to see the results of such tests, will you be convinced to shift your carb intake to intake of fructose-rich substances? Would you be able to convince family and friends to make the shift? And would it be possible to see some diabetics regain the ability to produce insulin and improve the quality of their life?
