is fructose inherently bad for health? please do not answer by saying that the amount in fruit is ok for it misses the point but is generally the only answer i seem to be able to get from google searches.
but what i wish to inquire about is the nature of fructose itself is it inherently disadvantages to human health for some reason outside of an artificially high dose found in commercial food products?
You need to either watch Mat Lalonde's all day seminar by the OPT folks or watch Lustig's TED video. Basically fructose is not "inherently disadvantageous" to human health until it overwhelms the liver's capacity to metabolize it.
And thus, like so many things (including water), the dose makes the poison.
See Sugar: The Bitter Truth on you tube with Dr. Lustig; It explains the whole process of metabolizing fructose and the impact on the body. It's pretty bad when consumed in quantity; hence an orange is okay and fruit juice is not.
If you'd like to dig into the anti-Lustig side of the fructose debate, Alan Aragon critiques his anti-fructose arguments in the following articles (with responses by Lustig in the comments section):
Id like to remind you of a study. It was conducted while visiting Any Mall USA, go ahead, sit down at the mall and observe. Guess what the extremely large humans typically have in common. Oh, you don't need to guess? They are carrying around big gulps and cinnabons you say??
Wake up human beings, you can't consume massive amounts of sugar in the USA WITHOUT consuming massive amounts of Fructose, its simply IMPOSSIBLE. At least 40% of all 'sugar' consumed in the usa is Fructose. Since 'sugar' is fructose-glucse, and HFCS is a little higher, if your eating sugar, its got fructose.
Is fructose necessary? 5 Answers