There has never been any research revealed on the long-term effects of die
tary sugars by government or universities.  Numerous short-term studies suggest the need for longer studies.  Billions of $US have been spent on long-term effects of dietary fats.  Now billions are being spent to prove phytochemicals (toxins and medicinals)  found in plants are beneficial in the human diet.
See Canadian Boadcasting Company documentary...  Lawyer response to big sugar

My small group has followed fructose related research since 1991.  In the hunt, I ran across numerous folks who were at least aware that fructose is adverse.

In 2002 research from UC Davis exposed fructose as the cause of the obesity epidemic.  I thought it would make headlines world wide.  I imagined it would be on front page of Wall Street Journal. Never happened!  It was weeks before I found any reference to the research.  It was in the obscure local Davis, CA paper.  What was bankrupting healthcare and triggering the "Obesity Epidemic" is kept from folks. Please take time to look at the research.  Review the research that followed that cites this study.  The full truth will get out in time.

Parents… Current and Future

Disclosure… I am an old ER doc who loves telling a few truths that can easily keep millions from suffering while they save money and enjoy life more.  I am not brilliant, but I have on average spent 3 hour per day for 23 years researching and pondering health problems related to the fructose molecule.  As a result I am cognitively biased against dietary fructose and hyperglycemia (both increases fructose in cells).

Do humans respond to fructose like lab animals?

When I first looked into fructose over 23 years ago I found that young rats made Type 2 diabetics (T2D) by putting fructose in their food were then used to test T2D drugs.  Half of rat’s chow was replaced by same fructose marketed in health food stores as a treatment for diabetics. Thus fed, healthy rats became lethargic, obese, hypertensive, insulin resistant (metabolic syndrome) and developed many other chronic diseases.  The same happened with hamsters, guinea pigs, dogs, cats, etc.    A fructose fed animal was perfect for testing many drugs.  Besides drug manufactures, many companies involved in healthcare, food marketing and organizations depending on them for donations were probably aware of fructose.  Chronic disease and T2D had already been increasing for 50 years so it meant a 10 fold decrease in $profit over time if public stopped eating fructose.  It meant a10-fold increase in $profit and donations overtime if the public kept eating fructose.  If this seems ridiculous see     (and related articles)

From economic research by Milken Institute and paid for by drug companies…quote  “By our 2003 calculations, the most common chronic diseases are costing the economy more than $1 trillion annually.  That figure threatens to reach $6 trillion by the middle of the century.”

Milken Institute hopes to encourage everyone to pay for more drug research to cure diseases that can, at no cost, be reduced by 90% or more by trusted health advisers telling everyone the truth about fructose.  Is this a another paradox?


Experts say it is a paradox that some fat people are extremely healthy.  It is not a paradox unless you are claiming obesity is the cause of health problems.  Lots of normal weight people also have metabolic syndrome.  Obesity is just the most obvious of many adverse effects of eating fructose or having hyperglycemia. The true paradox is why brilliant people continue to avoid looking into the basic research on why fructose is at the same time both vital to cells, horribly adverse to cells and our major health-care problem.  If they look, they will find “nature within” has strived to limit exposure to fructose to what is needed for cell replication.  Not knowing this leads to confusion and paradoxes.  Basically, hyperglycemia is adverse because it pushes the sorbitol pathway producing fructose to excess in cells. See for details.  Metabolic syndrome has a hereditary component mainly triggered by dietary fructose and intracellular fructose created by hyperglycemia.  High triglycerides in most cases are due to dietary fructose or hyperglycemia. Fructose is probably addicting to 10% of population. Unhealthy obesity is just one of hundreds of conditions expressed early when fructose is eaten or hyperglycemia is present. 


Most extremely obese individuals and many folks expressing genetic predispositions to chronic disease early such as the cirrhosis of liver called NASH are addicted to fructose, just as most folks with alcohol cirrhosis are addicted to alcohol.  So in effect you are treating “Sugarholics”as explained by Jack Lalanne in the 1950s.  Avoiding alcohol is effective in one condition, avoiding fructose in the other. This isn’t easy when everyone else is guzzling one or the other.  // …Jack LaLanne. 

Is a little fructose good?

So how much fructose is ideal?  The answer is just enough to make the new nuclear material needed when healthy cells replicate no more, no less.  This is normally provided by sorbitol pathway in just the amount needed in the moment.  This means you don’t need to eat any fructose.  Cancer cells often lack this ability and depend on dietary fructose or hyperglycemia to replicate. (This is one very good reason to avoid fructose and keep blood glucose normal).  Allowing fructose, agave or sorbitol to be marketed as healthy because they have extremely low glycemic indexes is government failure. 

In some third world populations the incidence of diabetes is less than 1%.  A 20.6 gram/day increase in dietary fructose over time raises diabetes prevalence 11-fold.  This fits well with 20 grams of alcohol being significant and that there probably is no safe lower limit for alcohol, fructose or cigarette smoke.  It also fits 20 year old studies from China and India studies that show same effect on incidence of coronary artery disease.    See…  (includes many good references).    

ou have time the following article is best explanation of the mechanisms involved in fructose triggering disease predispositions.  The supporting references are many. TAGE and RAGE

Quote from Lustig on diabetes…“Bottom line -- only changes in sugar availability explained changes in diabetes prevalence worldwide; nothing else mattered.

Total caloric availability was unrelated to diabetes prevalence; for every extra 150 calories per day, diabetes prevalence rose by only 0.1 percent. But if those 150 calories per day (20.6 grams of fructose jw note) happened to be a can of soda (usually sucrose outside US) diabetes prevalence rose 11-fold, by 1.1 percent and this effect of sugar was exclusive of obesity; controlling for body mass index did not negate the effect. Even more important, we showed that the change in sugar availability preceded the change in diabetes (that's cause, not effect); and we showed directionality -- those countries where sugar availability rose showed increases in diabetes, while those where sugar availability fell showed decreases in diabetes. This is a very robust signal, with little noise. While epidemiology can't prove scientific causation, the data allow for objective inference. Sugar drives diabetes world-wide and unrelated to its calories.” End quote… It is interesting that studies on Indian farmers suggest that coronary artery disease also increases 11 fold with small increases in dietary fructose.  It is hard to find a chronic disease that hasn’t increased in incidence as dietary fructose consumption increases.  Discordant identical obese twin studies show that at least with obesity, environment is more important than genes.

Until proven otherwise.

Until proven otherwise mothers can avoid what is becoming recognized as a toxin. Fructose like alcohol is proving to be adverse before conception (ovum and sperm), in the womb and as child grows. Pregnant mother, baby, child or students have been misled into eating lots of what gram for gram may be worse than alcohol.  Unlike alcohol, students are not intoxicated after 12 ounces of apple juice so mother’s reason “alcohol must be worse than fruit sugar”.  It doesn’t seem possible that fruit sugar can be addicting and cause liver failure, cancer and death like alcohol!  It is inconvenient, but fructose is addicting for many. Both alcohol and fructose are mainly detoxified in the liver.  Fructose in cells is the leading cause of liver disease in USA, not alcohol, not infection. NASH (caused by unhealthy amount of fructose in cells) is second only to hepatitis C as a reason for liver transplantation. Liver disease is only one of many diseases fructose can increases 10 to 20 fold or more. 1½ shot (drinks) is 20 grams of alcohol molecules. One medium sized apple contains 10 grams of fructose molecules. A 12 oz soda contains 20 grams and 12 oz of apple juice has 24 grams of fructose.

What is significance of only 20 grams of alcohol per day? The American Journal of Public Health concludes… “Daily consumption of up to 20 grams of alcohol (≤ 1.5 drinks) accounted for 26% to 35% of alcohol-attributable cancer deaths. Alcohol remains a major contributor to cancer mortality and Years per Life Lost. Higher consumption increases risk but there is no safe threshold for alcohol and cancer risk.”

I suspect that if there is no safe amount of alcohol, there is also no safe threshold for fructose in cells either. It is the alcohol metabolite acetaldehyde that is a carcinogen and triggers liver disease. It is the fructose metabolite glyceraldehyde that is a carcinogen and triggers liver disease. Both aldehydes are toxic to functional proteins in cells where they are formed.  Both cause toxic advanced glycation end products (TAGE). See …. to understand why both dietary fructose and hyperglycemia cause unhealthy amounts of fructose in cells.

We live in amazing times when it may be possible for young women who understand what I am saying to personally reduce the probability their children will express a major mental illness, type one and two diabetes or other genetic disease predispositions including NASH and maybe cancer by 90% compared to USA norm. Latest Lustig Video Part 1 Part 2 Lustig Part 3 Lustig  Questions Lustig 


What can be done?

Reversing and preventing chronic disease begins when folks do their own homework or are told the truth by their health advisers.  Next, those who want to free family and millions of others from preventable suffering will do some of following.   A… Make it easy, simple and affordable for everyone to understand and obtain their essential food molecules.  B… Make it easy to avoid fructose by encouraging marketers to provide fructose free options of favorite foods (this includes food labels with amount of fructose and warnings as for alcohol).  C…Help individuals realize why they need to limit their cell fructose to only what is needed for cell replication by keeping their blood glucose normal (by diet and exercising effectively and if necessary medication).  D… Encourage individuals to boycott prepared and processed foods containing fructose until marketers feel it is profitable to provide fructose free options.  E… Encourage informed individuals to create and volunteer to staff effective ways to help folks addicted to fructose. 

What can be done?   Ancient cultures including native Californians were smart enough to realize acorns from oak trees would make a wonderful food similar to corn meal or flour, but only if they learned to process out the toxin (gallotannin).  Modern Americans are smart enough to realize fruit will make a wonderful food, but only after we learn to process out the toxin (fructose).  Ancients solved their problem.  Can we solve ours?  Wiki… acorn (see exercise tab)  (how we obtain our needs is what makes fructose molecules a huge social and health problem)

Website Builder