The Metabolic Advantage of Fructose

Is fructose making us fat?  Apparently the answer is no if you get your fructose in the form of candy!

Thanks to MM for sending me this paper.

Candy consumption was not associated with body weight measures, risk factors for cardiovascular disease, or metabolic syndrome in US adults: NHANES 1999-2004

For the purposes of this study, candies were defined as follows:

Sugar candy consists of sugar in crystalline form or semisolid (amorphous) forms with other ingredients including flavors and colors; examples include peppermint, lollipops, licorice, and gum drops. Chocolate candy is a mixture of processed cacao, cocoa butter, and sugar and often contains other ingredients, including milk, fruit, nuts, and caramels.

 This group analyzed 3 sets of NHANES data to look at candy consumption defined as:

Candy consumers were defined as those participants consuming any amounts of candy/confection except gum and were placed in 1of 3 overlapping consumption groups: (a) any candy (including chocolate candy and sugar candy), (b) chocolate candy only, and (c) sugar candy only

Consumers were then compared to non-consumers.  I'm somewhat surprised that with "any" being the distinguishing cut-off that only a little more than 20% eat candy.  Of course this could be because the rest of us eat candy with a different label (can you say Nutrigrain bars? LOL).  They also broke the data down by gender and ethnicity.   Here's that breakdown {as always, click to enlarge}, though I'll not discuss this aspect further.  

Here's the intake data:

and MetS parameter data: 

(I'll include the lengthy definitions at the end of this post)

Now, the first thing that jumped out at me was the intake calories.  Lookie at that one folks.  We're often told that Americans consume roughly 300 cal/day more now than we used to.  So 20% of us get roughly 200 of those extra calories from our candy or because eating candy makes our blood glucose spike, sending out the insulin police, trapping the fat, yada yada so we eat more of everything else.   Mystery solved!  We eat more because we're eating too much sugar.  Dr. Lustig would be proud of me for uncovering this!  Sound the alarm!!  THIS is why we're fat and the sugar-shunning Japanese are so slim.  (Well, that and their notorious brown rice consumption that must contain a special non-insulinogenic starch ... but I digress ... ) .  Don't look down the aisle!

But weight ... I mean, wait!  Check out that weight and BMI data!  The candy consumers weigh a bit less and have slightly lower BMI across the board.   

Thinking ...

Thinking ...

Isn't there a term for this phenomenon?  Where folks can eat a bit more and not gain weight?  It's right on the tip of my tongue ...  Yeah!  That's it.  A Metabolic Advantage!!!

And the advantage goes to? ..........

      

So let's see ... that extra insidious combination of insulin spiking glucose and liver poisoning fructose, one of the most refined of all carbos ... DOESN'T MAKE US FAT.

Somebody should write a book on this stuff!

OK, but surely it makes us sick?  Umm ... again, it appears no.  

In conclusion, these cross-sectional data show an increase in energy, AS, and SFA associated with candy consumption but did not show an increase in weight/adiposity status, BP, cardiovascular risk factors, or risk of MetS. Candy consumers actually had a lower body weight and lower adiposity status than nonconsumers, even after adjusting for implausible intakes; CRP was also significantly reduced with consumption of candy. Consumption of chocolate candy was also associated with higher HDL-C and lower triglycerides.  Candy consumers had a lower risk of elevated diastolic BP than nonconsumers, whereas chocolate consumers had a decreased risk of lower HDL-C and MetS. Total candy consumption was not associated with a lower HEI. Overall, current level of candy consumption was not associated with adverse health effects.

So in conclusion, eating more saturated fat makes you eat more but weigh less.  >:-)  

----------------------------

a

Elevated systolic BP was defined as ≥130 mm Hg.

b

Elevated diastolic BP was defined as ≥85 mm Hg.

c

Elevated BP was defined as ≥130/85 mm Hg.

d

Lower HDL-C was defined as b40 mg/dL for men and b50 mg/dL for women.

e

Elevated fasting triglycerides were defined as ≥150 mg/dL.

f

Elevated fasting glucose was defined as ≥110 mg/dL.

g

Increased WC was defined as N102 cm for men and N88 cm for women.

h

Meets 3 or more of MetS risk components.

i

Elevated LDL-C was defined as ≥100 mg/dL.