Pure glucose doesn't disrupt mineral balance, pure fructose does.
Ok, let's look at this again now that it's not real late and I haven't consumed two bottles of my favorite Petite Syrah.
You're saying that as fructose in metabolized in the liver it raises lactic acid levels which inhibits the absorption of calcium, phosphorous and magnesium. Yes, without phosphorous and magnesium, iron and copper absorption can be inhibited.
Problem is, lactic acid just doesn't build up in the liver because the liver metabolizes it down to CO2 and water. Muscles, of course, will break down the sugar they use for energy into lactic acid but no further. However, the blood whisks it away to the liver where it's broken down. Lactic acid can also be converted back to glucose by the liver but that does not happen often. There are times when lactic acid will build up in the muscles faster than the blood can remove it. This happens only under extreme circumstances, mostly with athletes, and causes the muscles to go into tetany (muscles refuse to contract) which is the same as a charley horse.
The liver is the reason lactic acid doesn't build up in the body. The human body is an amazing instrument that has an incredible ability to ensure that things like lactic acid don't build up. Over the ages, the human body has learned to pass things along that may be bad for it. Just look at how well we're able to handle alcohol. It's a poison yet our body does an exceptional job of filtering it out and sending it on its way. It just doesn't make any sense to think that lactic acid, in a healthy body, will be allowed to build up enough to rob the body of calcium, phosphorous and magnesium. Our body was designed to protect the living organism.
I read the link about kidney calcification in female rats and although it's impossible to determine a great deal from so little information, I was taken by the fact that the researchers fed the rats purified diets which is not the real world. Of course you'd need to know the levels of fructose and glucose that they were fed. If they were fed high concentrations of fructose this would result in high concentrations in the blood that the liver couldn't handle. That, in turn, would transfer to the urine and cause minerals to pass in the urine. No surprises there. What's important to know is what the normal levels of glucose and fructose are after a meal. If you overwhelm the body with anything it can cause all sorts of malady's. I said earlier that researchers will feed lab rats and mice quantities of these products that would be impossible, or at least unreasonable, for humans to consume. So they get results that have no relationship to real life. Remember, 95% of all scientific experiments never amount to anything. All kinds of research is done that is meaningless. That's the nature of research.
As for the other link, I'll look more into what they've done but right off the bat, I'd say that using fructose for 20% of energy is an immediate issue. It looks like all of their references are from research done prior to 1998, when I was actively involved in the R&D side of the food industry. I would have certainly been aware of these findings had the industry thought the research valid. But you never know what these folks might have come up with, that might be new and exciting, so I'll give it a thorough look.
As for insulin resistance and dyslipidemia....I don't know what to think of this. I've seen this stuff posted on FR before but just don't believe that this is in any way valid. I've seen some people here contend that the liver converts fructose far more readily to triglycerides than it does with glucose. I have never seen any legitimate research that proves that there is faster fat formation with fructose than with glucose. As I said earlier, Glucose is converted into 3x2 carbon fragments. Fructose is also broken down into 3x2 carbon fragments. The body cannot differentiate between the two.
Maybe what they are saying is that fructose yields these two carbon fragments faster than glucose. I don't believe it but, if it did, fructose would also give you energy faster than glucose. This would be an advantage for many people, especially athletes, but I have never seen any research saying this is so. You cannot have one without the other.
This whole debate is really very simple. If you are an active person who doesn't overeat, glucose and fructose are converted into energy. If you do not need the energy at the time, the excess glucose and fructose is converted to glycogen and stored, mostly in the liver, until the body needs to produce more energy. When you need energy, the stored glycogen is converted back to glucose.
With sedentary people, as well as those who consume too many calories, the process is different. If the body has converted the excess glucose and fructose to glycogen and the glycogen reserves are full, the body will convert the excess glycogen to fat. Think of an empty bucket that you fill with water. Once the water fills the bucket it starts overflowing. That overflow is what the body turns into fat. To stop the overflow, you must stop pouring into the bucket. People get fat because they consume too many calories and don't burn enough of it off. That's why this whole issue about the body converting fructose to fat faster than glucose doesn't matter either way. If you aren't consuming more calories than you need it's a non-issue.
As for the insulin issue, from the studies I've seen making this claim they are always prefaced by saying that large quantities of fructose can cause insulin resistance. Anything in excess can be bad for you. Long distance runners are dropping dead now from consuming too much water when they run. If you overwhelm the body with sugar you can induce diabetes by damaging cells in the pancreas. You rarely see thin people with diabetes. Excess calories, usually from carbs, results in weight gain and diabetes.
Sugar and HFCS are not the cause. Consuming too many calories and not exercising enough is. Problem is, there are many who use the Internet now as a means of promoting their agenda. Food ingredients will be the next class action lawsuit because of junk science.
As for the article on VLDL....I got to the part where they indicated using genetically obese rats. They didn't even use normal rats. I guess they thought there would be some parallels to obese humans . So, now you have research using abnormal genetics, abnormal diets and abnormal metabolisms. Trying to transfer any learnings from this to healthy people is suspect from the start. To fully grasp what's being done here you'd have to fully understand genetics.
But I insist that one of, if not the, major carbohydrate in the "Standard American Diet" is HFCS
The major carb in the American diet is starch. Do you really think that we consume more HFCS than rice, pasta and potatoes?
America is getting around to removing the excess amounts of sugar in their diet -- but HFCS is sliding in thru the back door.
It's not a conspiracy. HFCS is used because it's cheaper and keeps the food police happy. The fact that it's much sweeter than sugar means that less of it is used to achieve the same level of sweetness as sucrose. Sucrose is half glucose and half fructose. There is more fructose in HFCS but by using less of it you're not getting as much more fructose as you might think.
Apologies for the epic post.
No. The metabolism of fructose in and of itself leeches the minerals. Lactic acid production is a artifact.
... I was taken by the fact that the researchers fed the rats purified diets which is not the real world. Of course you'd need to know the levels of fructose and glucose that they were fed. If they were fed high concentrations of fructose this would result in high concentrations in the blood that the liver couldn't handle. ...
So feeding humans with a 80/20 mix of fructose/glucose is not a "high concentration"?
... but right off the bat, I'd say that using fructose for 20% of energy is an immediate issue.
Don't look at the cans in your pantry ...
... As for insulin resistance and dyslipidemia....I don't know what to think of this. I've seen this stuff posted on FR before but just don't believe that this is in any way valid.
I posted links to papers from the New England Journal of Medicine and the National Institutes of Health. Discussion of beliefs are well covered on the crevo threads.
...
The major carb in the American diet is starch. Do you really think that we consume more HFCS than rice, pasta and potatoes?
On a per calorie basis ... Yes.