One ingredient [Fructose] cause chronic diseases, but most processed foods contain more


#1

There is plenty of evidence Fructose is the key killer ingredient in our diet. It causes diabetes, cardio vascular diseases, liver diseases and when combined with fat it causes alzheimers disease.
Now here’s the kicker, soylent and many clones put fructose in form of isomaltulose in the formula in high amounts. Isomaltulose metabilizes to fructose in same amounts as table sugar only slower, and still is half fructose half glucose.

More to point isomaltulose has some features that are better than sugar but overall it is almost as bad as adding sucrose for chronic diseases.

Sugar->how fructose is bad for you. Note its about fructose in your liver, and after liver that causes problems, and not about the form it enters in the mouth.

How replacing sugar with iso-maltulose isn’t much better. Note it is comparing to sugar, and sugar is really bad, so not clinically significant difference means it is almost as bad as adding sugar.


http://www.sugarnutrition.org.uk/Metabolic-effects-replacing-sucrose-isomaltulose-subjects-Type-2-Diabetes.aspx

The trade off is of course the taste, you cannot make anything both really healthy and taste sweet. I personally got completely rid of fructose temporarily last year and for a while my taste preferences changed so that consuming sweets became hard, I failed badly at new years eve on the diet and didn’t get back although somewhat limited my sugar consumption still.
I think soylent is better than many of processed food at grocery store which add sugar to it in higher amounts and you can easily exceed the amount of sugar you get from Soylent. But if you really think about getting rid of sugars and put your thought to it you can do much better than current formula of Soylent that is close enough of average stuff.


#2

I guess it’s been a while since we had one of these threads.


#3

Fructose is bad in large amounts, and in a higher ratio than glucose… (High fructose corn syrup is a good example of bad fructose) but under normal conditions, fructose is not harmful. (Otherwise you should also stay away from almost all fruit)

The I believe I read somewhere that the body releases fructose ensymes along in the presense of glucose… Or something along those lines… Which is why the ratio is important.

I believe you can find more informstion on the forum if you look for it, as all this has been talked about before


#4

Preposterous! Are you saying they put antifreeze in Soylent?!

Oh, wrong controversy… Sorry.


#5

I found that searching for “the bitter truth” on this site unearthed previous discussion on this issue.


#6

The new trehalose is double glucose, zero fructose… And at least the release of fructose in isomaltulose is very gradual…


#7

That ratio thing is totally not at all correct, its absolute amounts that get to your liver matter, which is only organ that can change it to bad cholesterol so that it can be used by other cells as energy source. High fiber in fruits reduces the amount of already relatively low amounts of fructose most fruits have.

Then all the research that high fructose corn syrup is equal to normal sugar in its effects, that all parties agree, it just contains little bit more fructose than table sugar which makes it that little bit worse but its all the same its number of fructose molecules that hit your blood stream and eventually go to liver because its only place that can handle it. And there 30% of it is converted to bad cholesterol compared to ~1% of of glucose. Yes eating anything will eventually hurt our blood vessels but fructose is much more potent that you should never add more than very low percentage 1-3% of your diet of it, and that’s where the fruits issue becomes non-issue, because most fruits are about 3-5% of fructose and you don’t eat just fruits but other stuff with it so your overall consumption is well below that if you don’t do added sugars nor fruit juices.
If fructose content would be under half of current or preferably under third of current formula I probably would consider it acceptable,while I would prefer even lower.


#8

I added fructose to the thread title in an effort to make it more informative.

@Jouni_Osmala, you make a lot of claims in your post but I don’t see any explanations or evidence presented. If your goal is to convince people of your beliefs, explaining your reasoning for those beliefs is the first step.

For example, I had never heard of this relationship between fructose and bad cholesterol before. So I did a Google search and found one meta-analysis: Very high fructose intake increases serum LDL-cholesterol and total cholesterol: a meta-analysis of controlled feeding trials.

Subgroup analyses showed that isocaloric fructose exchange for carbohydrates increased TC by 13.0 mg/dL [(95% CI: 4.7, 21.3); P = 0.002] and LDL-C by 11.6 mg/dL [(95% CI: 4.4, 18.9); P = 0.002] at >100 g fructose/d. However, no effect was shown on TC or LDL-C when the fructose intake was ≤100 g/d. In conclusion, it was shown that very high fructose intake (>100 g/d) increases serum LDL-C and TC concentrations. Larger, longer, and higher-quality human, controlled, feeding trials are needed to confirm these results.

I am not an expert, but to me it sounds like you need to be consuming more than 100 grams per day of fructose to see any effect. I honestly do not know the fructose content of Soylent 1.5, but as it contains 60 grams per day of total sugars I assume the fructose component of that must therefore be less than 60 grams per day.

I didn’t dig any further because I’m not sure if it would be helpful to me. For example, you say that:

It actually reduces the fructose, or it slows/blocks its absorption? I’m left guessing. It’s unreasonable for strangers to take your statements as correct at face value when you haven’t “shown your work,” so to speak.


#9

Less than 1% of fructose gets converted to cholesterol. Most gets converted to glucose and/or lactate.

It seems that an apple has 13g fructose and only 3g fiber. I wouldn’t call that relatively low compared to a serving of Soylent. Soylent has 47.3g of isomaltulose per bag or 11.825g per serving. Half of that being the dreaded fructose (5.9125g). So really a serving of Soylent is less dangerous to you than an apple.

EDIT: just realized the OP was talking about isomaltose not maltodextrin.