I can't believe that there is so much high fructose corn syrup in all these foods. Thanks for the information!

I question the importance here. If you've already eliminated the major offenders like sweet drinks and desserts, is the amount of fructose you're likely to consume from sources like restaurant salad dressings really likely to do any more damage than, say, the ethanol in the glass of wine you drink with dinner 4 or 5 times a week?

Also, Heinz now makes a non-HFCS ketchup ("Simply Heinz"), not that subbing sucrose for HFCS really buys you much from a health perspective.

Proponents of HFCS state that it's no worse than sucrose.  However, the physical properties of HFCS allow it to be used in a lot more foods than sugar.

I'm thinking about eating an apple a day. How would this affect my glucose levels, and lipid levels. Is my plan good, bad, or neutral? Thanks for any answers.

I could go on about the amazing, appalling corruption of our ssystem of government but the fact the government promotes and subsidizes bad food for the benefit of a tiny portion of the population has to be one of the worst examples.

Apple harvest, before refrigeration, was consumed as cider. The more alcoholic it got the less residual fructose it had.

"An apple a day keeps the doctor away" is a relatively new rhyme. Old heirloom tree stock yields pretty sour apples; we've bred them to be sweeter.

Fructose is far worse than previously suspected. It is, in my view, a large part of the reason so many Americans are obese, diabetic, with all the complications of these conditions.

A few milligrams per day from fructose is likely of little to no consequence. But a little here, a little there and it all adds up. Ketchup, salad dressing, a couple of pieces of fruit, some "organic agave nectar" on your dessert, an you've had a substantial exposure.

Let the belt out a notch or two.

It's definitely a drag that so much of the food you get in a restaurant now is doused in sugar to match most peoples' tastes, to say nothing of the fact that everything is also cooked in refined vegetable oils!

Beer does not contain (more than trace) fructose. It does contain significant dextrose and starch in excess of what is found in wine/whiskey.

How much fructose did a caveman on average consume? Does anyone know?

Some of the cooked vegetables at restaurants (especially tomato sauce and diced tomatoes) also typically come from cans with BPA linings.

MSG is also pretty common with restaurant food. I once saw a guy at a Chinese place carrying a 50 lb sack of MSG into the back door. Yes, it comes in bulk. Most horrifying food-related sight I have ever seen, and trust me, Chinatown has some pretty horrifying food-related sights. But it's not just Chinese food. MSG is everywhere.

Re: fructose and average cavemen. "Average" is meaningless. But during berry season, I wouldn't be surprised if 60% of the calories were from berries, so 30% of calories each from fructose and glucose, with dried meat or fish making up the other 40%. Have you ever been in the mountains of Washington during August? Incredible numbers of wild blueberries, slightly smaller than the ones in stores but just as tasty. The Indians of that area preserved blueberries in salmon oil, so they would be available year-round.

Humans are clearly designed to process fructose as 30% or more of daily calories, just like our ape ancestors. Whether this amount of fructose contributes to longevity or not is another story. Evolution needs us to bear and raise healthy offspring, which requires living to age 40 or so. After that, we are no longer needed, and evolution might even want us to get out of the way after age 40.

As often the solution is simple: eat real food. Don't eat anything that is advertised. Stay away from anything that has been processed. Learn how to cook.

Just wondering about "cave men" and their kin .... It seems their epoch's realtors
pitch about cave sites being all about location, location, location determined who got the best pickings.

I don't think the hunting was all so easy for them. Cavemen had to share any game brought down; a fellow needed to feed his gun bearer and give his trucker some.

For them it was probably hieracrchial portion of the kill and seasonal wild pickings. Mostly allaying hunger with rationed dried meat and what they dug up or stripped from plants.

When the cave far from water it might mean progressive dehydration spells. Many may very well have been experiencing protracted disassociation brain chemistry states.

Dr. Davis,

Yet, in my opinion, I still think there is a substantial difference between consuming natural fructose and HFCS.

For example, an apple contains polyphenols, flavanols, fiber, and other various anti-inflammatory substances that work synergistically together to buffer the some of negative effects high blood glucose.

Pure HFCS, on the other hand is highly processed from genetically modified corn, void of any buffering nutrients and very high in reactive aldehydes and ketones(which cause serious oxidative stress and inflammation).

--Big difference, here

A high consumption of HFCS has, through numerous studies, been clearly implicated in numerous conditions such visceral fat, insulin resistance, fatty liver and obesity, etc. A high consumption of natural fruit has not.

A just think this distinction should be made more clearly. Just my opinion.

Dr. Davis,

Yet, in my opinion, I still think there is a substantial difference between consuming natural fructose and HFCS.

For example, an apple contains polyphenols, flavanols, fiber, and other various anti-inflammatory substances that work synergistically together to buffer the some of negative effects high blood glucose.

Pure HFCS, on the other hand is highly processed from genetically modified corn, void of any buffering nutrients and very high in reactive aldehydes and ketones(which cause serious oxidative stress and inflammation).

--Big difference, here

A high consumption of HFCS has, through numerous studies, been clearly implicated in numerous conditions such visceral fat, insulin resistance, fatty liver and obesity, etc. A high consumption of natural fruit has not.

A just think this distinction should be made more clearly. Just my opinion.

Hi Davide Palmer,

Would you please elaborate on ketones? I am assuming it's about the context wherein they occur.

I was taught ketones are the heart's preferred fuel.
One Doctor who uses cocconut oil for Alzheimers says we fortuitously convert it into ketones.

oops...meant to say reactive carbonyls. Reactive ketones are produced in response to reactive carbonyls.

your correct about the problems of BBQ sauce. i have eliminated most of the HFCS from my diet...except for BBQ sauces. the best tasting one in my opinion is Sweet Baby Rays but its loaded with HFCS, and lots of sodium. KC Masterpiece is marginally healthier and less appetizing. Any recommendations for a readymade sauce?

As one of many out there who suffers from Fructose Malabsorption, I can tell you it is a very hard substance to avoid!  Garlic, onions, apples, pears are very high in fructose and everyone has their own personal threshhold for tolerance.

I wonder how this factors into overall health issues such as cardiovascular disease, IDDM etc.?

I read some studies (sorry, I don't have immediate links) where men eating HFCS had their lipid profiles somewhat return to baseline after eating the HFCS diet beyond 3 months?  

Has anyone else read this?

I can't believe that there is so much high fructose corn syrup in all these foods. I just want to say that eat real food. Don't eat anything that is advertised.
Thanks for the information! Please keep sharing!

I thought I once read that a caveman ate only 12 to 15 tablespoons of sugar per year based on the scarcity of fruit and the type of fruit that existed but I have not been able to verify. Just wondering if anyone had data.

Research just released by University of Auckland shows that fructose consumption can harm unborn babies

http://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/wellbeing/4647075/Fructose-can-harm-babies-study

So Dr. Davis are you suggesting we don't eat fruit at ALL. Or just have a few servings per day?

You've mentioned before about the medical communities bias toward procedural medicine. If hospitals were to change their position and embrace a preventive bias for heart disease treatment, (early detection, and then addressing with appropriate supplements, drugs, and diet.) any ideas on how much savings for the nation could be had?

Our analysis suggests $634 million per 100,000 people would be saved if they were to engage in a simple program of prevention using heart scans.

Our analysis and rationale can be found at http://trackyourplaque.com/library/fl_hh005bankrupt.asp.

Dr. Davis: I fully agree that legislation is not the answer to this unfortunate practice. I favor freedom for physicians, and an informed public. Government regulation can and will ruin the practice of health care and incentives for new medical techniques and approaches. For those who think the government can be helpful, take a look at Medicare.

I had a “drive-by” angioplasty done in 1999 and a “drive-by” angiogram done in 2000 by the same cardiologist. He told me that I had 90% blockage on one of my main arteries after he performed the first angioplasty. Few years later, a neurologist told me that I actually suffered from panic attacks, not heart attacks. I always wonder how an experienced cardiologist could mistake a panic attack as a heart attack, not once but twice.

"To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail."

It holds true in medicine, unfortunately. Especially when each swing of the hammer pays thousands of dollars.

I have often thought that one underlying force that drives this phenomenon might be the fear of lawsuits.  Being a lawyer, I hate to bash the legal profession, but I know that once the person is on the cath table and any blockage is found that some interventional cardiologist somewhere might choose to stent, some doctors may feel the need to practice defensive medicine.  Even before they get to the cath table this is probably an influence.  In other words, say this patient died of a heart attack soon after this hospital visit (which as we all know, could happen even if the symptoms were unrelated to his plaque burden).  If the hospital had not done the procedure (especially since they have an entire crew of people sitting around all day long just waiting to do these), it's possible that some other intervention-oriented cardiologist might be found who would testify that the standard of care these days is to do the angiogram, and that had this been done, it's quite possible, even likely, that the blockage could have been opened up and death avoided.  (Even though we know that this is speculative and depends on how close to this visit the heart attack occurs, as far as the likelihood that this might be a life-saving procedure.)  The further out the heart attack occurs, the less compelling the causation argument.  But I gotta believe that there is defensive medicine being practiced in some of these situations.  And the trouble is, it's the very state of the treatment attitude that contributes to this result, i.e., the fact that unexpected heart attacks are as common as they are, and the proliferation and ready availability of cath labs, so that they are viewed as routinely available.

Hi, Warren-

Yes. I agree absolutely.

In fact, I believe this is exceptionally common. So common that it's become acceptable standard of care.

Often the appearance of doing something is better than the appeareance of doing nothing, regardless of how ineffective the treatment is.