Peter Attia· MD
I I just don't see the data to demonstrate that an isocaloric substitution of fructose for glucose is demonstrably worse for health outcomes if total energy intake is preserved
Loading…
The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
I I just don't see the data to demonstrate that an isocaloric substitution of fructose for glucose is demonstrably worse for health outcomes if total energy intake is preserved
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
I I just don't see the data to demonstrate that an isocaloric substitution of fructose for glucose is demonstrably worse for health outcomes if total energy intake is preserved
there every time a study has been attempted to my knowledge to look at the isocaloric impact of liquid fructose um it has been unable to discern if that is different from isocaloric glucose because the subjects usually end up losing weight even when you make an attempted isocaloric substitution for fructose to glucose in liquid form
if they look at studies where they substitute isocalorically they don't really see a difference on sugar sweetened beverages or fructose containing beverages I think was one of the The Meta analyses I looked at which I guess you know could could follow like fruit juices under that as well