Quantcast
issue
Read articles, including Science News stories written for ages 9-14, on the SNK website.
Fructose sweeteners may hike blood pressure
Human study confirms trend seen earlier in animals
A+ A- Text Size

Human study confirms trend seen earlier in animals

By Janet Raloff

Web edition: July 2, 2010

Enlarge
Fructose on the rocks
Soft drinks are a major source of added sugar (especially fructose) in the U.S. diet.
iStockPhoto

The more fructose American adults add to their diets, the higher their blood pressure tends to be. The new finding adds fuel to a simmering controversy about whether this simple sugar — found in fruits, table sugar, soft drinks and many baked goods — poses a health hazard that goes beyond simply consuming too many empty calories.

If the new data are confirmed, they might go a long way toward explaining a more than tripling in hypertension rates over the past century — a period when “fructose consumption has increased dramatically in industrialized nations including the United States,’ the authors say.

The idea that fructose might play a role in hypertension is not new. In 2008, an international team of researchers found that among mice, “Fructose feeding decreased salt excretion by the kidney and resulted in hypertension.” The scientists also homed in on a potential mechanism: the activity of a gene responsible for helping the small intestine absorb salt and secrete bicarbonate. When these researchers fed fructose to mice without the functioning gene or to animals eating a salt-free diet, the animals’ blood pressure remained unaltered.

But that was in rodents.

Diana Jalal and fellow nephrologists at the University of Colorado Denver Health Sciences Center in Aurora decided to look for evidence that fructose might have a similar effect in people. So they pulled data collected from a representative cross-section of Americans as part of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Conducted every few years, the new study's data came from the 2003 to 2006 survey and included more than 4,500 adults with no prior diagnosis of hypertension.

Sure enough, when Jalal's group stratified the participants by blood pressure — and many had undiagnosed prehypertension or outright vascular disease characterized by significantly elevated blood pressure — mean intake of added dietary fructose climbed by group. Their findings appear in the Journal of the American Society of Nephrology, published online July 1 ahead of print.

Their focus was “added” fructose. The qualifier refers to fructose intake other than that occurring as a natural constituent of any fruits or other produce. And the reason: Americans are not renowned for downing even the recommended daily servings of fruits and vegetables, much less an excess.

So these nephrologists — kidney specialists — concentrated on the fructose present as a sweetener in processed foods and beverages. Although fructose constitutes half of table sugar, it’s actually sweeter than the other constituent (glucose), so manufacturers have taken to sweetening most products with a high-fructose corn syrup. This somewhat increases the fructose content of the diet.

The new paper shows a barely significant trend toward increasing blood pressure with increasing fructose intake — until its authors applied a statistical technique (logistic regression analysis) to investigate the likelihood of blood pressure increasing as fructose consumption rises. Then they found a statistically significant link — but just for people with bone fide hypertension and only for systolic blood pressure (the higher of the two numbers in a blood-pressure reading).

Explains Jalal, her team’s new data indicate that “High fructose intake is a strong predictor of a greater risk of hypertension.” The average intake for people proved to be about 74 grams of added fructose per day, an amount equivalent to 2.5 soft drinks. People who ingest more than that “are at increased risk of high blood pressure when compared to the ones that ingest low fructose within each blood-pressure category,” she says.

While the Denver group was working on this study, another came out last year focusing on “sugar-sweetened beverage consumption, a significant source of dietary fructose.” It too focused on NHANES data — in this case, on almost 4,900 U.S. adolescents during the previous survey period: 1999 to 2004. And here, drinking sugary soda pop was again linked with elevated systolic blood pressure.

Of course, there are caveats. NHANES participants report their own dietary intake. The data are collected on diet the day before, not what each individual typically eats most days. And some people may be more sensitive to fructose impacts, whatever they might be.

Expect push back from the sweetener industry, especially the Washington, D.C.-based Corn Refiners Association, which has been defending high fructose corn syrup. Its website says: “Research confirms that high fructose corn syrup is safe and no different from other common sweeteners like table sugar and honey.”

I asked Michel Conchol, another of the Denver authors, about what’s next for his group: Will you conduct a feeding trial to control for differences in fructose contributions to the diet? Yes, he said: “We are already planning such a study.”

Comment
Print Friendly and PDF

Jalal, D.I., et al. Increased Fructose Associates with Elevated Blood Pressure. Journal of the American Society of Nephrology. Vol 21. Published online July 1, 2010. doi:10.1681/ASN.2009111111.

Nguyen, S. et al. Sugar-Sweetened Beverages, Serum Uric Acid, and Blood Pressure in Adolescents. The Journal of Pediatrics. Vol. 154. June 2009, p.807. doi:10.1016/j.jpeds.2009.01.015

Singh, A.K., et al. Fructose-Induced Hypertension: Essential Role of Chloride and Fructose Absorbing Transporters PAT1 and Glut5. Kidney International. Vol. 74. August (2), 2008, p. 438. doi:10.1038/ki.2008.184

Sanchez-Lozada, L.G., et al. Fructose-Induced Metabolic Syndrome Is Associated with Glomerular Hypertension and Renal Microvascular Damage in Rats. American Journal of Physiology--Renal Physiology. Vol. 292. January 2007, p. 292. doi:10.1152/ajprenal.00124.2006

Comments (10)

Please alert Science News to any inappropriate posts by clicking the REPORT SPAM link within the post. Comments will be reviewed before posting.

  • It is wrong to say that fructose is found in fruit, the quantity is so low so as to be negligible. Especially considering the small amount of fruit Americans eat, the negative dietary effects of fruit-derived fructose is miniscule.

    On the other hand, High Fructose Corn Syrup is in almost every food we eat. It is difficult to find any food without it. This variety of fructose is the digestive by-product of ethanol where corn is the food of bacterial digestion. So to be perfectly honest, how about blaming industrial waste rather than fruit?
    Gnarlodious Gnarlodious
    Jul. 2, 2010 at 7:55pm
  • "Although fructose constitutes half of table sugar, it’s actually sweeter than the other constituent (sucrose)"

    I believe (and am both confident and too lazy to check) that sucrose (C12H22O11) is table sugar and is a combination of glucose and fructose (both C6H12O6).
    Ric Werme Ric Werme
    Jul. 3, 2010 at 7:43am
  • While we're on the subject, here are a couple past SN articles - the first I remember from 1986, the second (by Janet Raloff! in 1987) I had forgotten.

    Oops forgot, can't link. I googled for fructose copper "science news"

    Fructose, the sugar found in honey and fruit, has been in vogue for more than a decade as a natural, good-for-you sweetener. Twice as sweet as table sugar, it is economical as well as fashionable; its use has increased seven-fold since the introduction of high-fructose corn sweeteners in 1970. Now, it is being implicated in heart disease. [Specifically, in copper-deficient subjects. My thought at the time was that acid rain and acid water supplies were eroding copper plumbin. The resulting increased copper consumption might explain the decline in heart disease.]

    "I couldn't believe it," says biochemist Meira Fields. "By the eleventh week my rats were either alive or dead -- there was nothing [illness-related] in between." And the only factor differentiating them was their sex.

    What this means, she says, is that "an animal was protected against death just by being female."

    Ric Werme Ric Werme
    Jul. 3, 2010 at 8:03am
  • Right on the glucose, Ric. Something I know and should have caught on rereading. But I'm surprised you remember our copper deficiency reporting. Those data remain stunning. I remember one researcher at the USDA Grand Forks lab saying they had to stop one human study mid-way through when a participant nearly died. So they went back to working with rodents.
    jar jar
    Jul. 3, 2010 at 12:05pm
  • People don't eat to maintain their body. The parasites in them don't allow that. They sold their body to the parasites for wealth and the parasites made their body its home, so their teeth are used only to chew, their stomach to digest, their intestine a smelly throne for the parasites. We have become a smelly fecal factory for the world of the parasitic earth because the parasites cannot live in clean places. So sugar and fat makes parasites happy. The whole earth is made a parasitic haven for the parasites and the clouds stink too otherwise it wouldn't be made a parasitic heaven where the parasites freeze their babies until they are called to rule earth.

    Our body is not made for these types of foods. But since earth was named earth by the arabic and greek parasites due to promise land, earth surface changes and all that is in changed to adapt to the new rulers of earth, bacteria. Since people have become bacteria's mobile temples they are not allow to be healthy for themselves, the parasites are allowed to be healthy in their mobile temples. Therefore, people become sick. Even skinny people are not healthy since they house parasites as well. As far as the parasites are concerned, their shells are to be shown to other parasites like birds displaying their feathers. The parasites are the important vermins in the body and have to be happy. They live on sugar, fat, blood, and decay. That is why people decay every day and that is why our gum decays and our breath stinks no matter the toothpaste. We have been made a stinky factory to keep earth stinky, a suited environment for the rulers of earth: Bacteria the parasites.
    planethorror planethorror
    Jul. 4, 2010 at 8:01am
  • Not only does fructose "play a role in hypertension," the evidence is compelling that it is a (if not the) major factor in obesity. This YouTube lecture by UCSF Professor of Pediatrics Robert H. Lustig, MD "explores the damage caused by sugary foods. He argues that fructose (too much) and fiber (not enough) appear to be cornerstones of the obesity epidemic through their effects on insulin. Series: UCSF Mini Medical School for the Public [7/2009] [Health and Medicine] [Show ID: 16717]"

    He goes through all the biochemistry in the digestive system. It is well worth the 90+ minutes (link information removed; go to youtube, then find: /watch?v=dBnniua6-oM)
    David Lyles David Lyles
    Jul. 4, 2010 at 11:56am
  • It still isn't clear, from the wording of this article, whether any of this testing is a comparison of the same total calories of fructose-glucose sugar vs. fructose-fructose sugar, or if it is only looking at more total fructose and ignoring total calories.

    Since our indulgent sugar sources are almost all pure fructose for sugars, vs. only half fructose sugars in normal foods, anyone with more total fructose is likely getting it by eating loads of extra sugar (and this is even mentioned in the article). We already know that is bad, so what we really need to know is if replacing high-fructose corn syrup with cane sugar is going to make any difference, and I don't see a clear statement on that.
    Carl P Carl P
    Jul. 12, 2010 at 8:08pm
  • I think instead of getting exercised about fructose, which is one ingredient in our diets and found in both high fructose corn syrup and in refined sugar, we should stop the fear mongering and think about leading all-around healthy lives. At the end of the day, high fructose corn syrup and refined sugar and handled by the body the same way.
    Consumer Freedom Consumer Freedom
    Jul. 14, 2010 at 1:26pm
  • I am writing to offer some comments and raise a few concerns related to the abovementioned posting on the USNews.com website.

    This posting was brought to my attention by a colleague who is aware of the fact that I am not only a cardiologist, but also my research laboratory has been the leading source of scientific information on High Fructose Corn Syrup and sucrose for the past seven years.

    The authors whose work you quote in your posting (Jalal, et al) appear to contend that fructose plays a major role in high blood pressure. You write that they suggest that fructose consumption may go a long way toward explaining the tripling of hypertension rates in the past century when you quote “Fructose consumption has increased dramatically in industrialized nations including the United States.” There are a few problems with these statements.

    First of all, it is important to note that in the last ten years fructose consumption in the United States has actually declined (1). Furthermore, increased consumption of fructose containing sweeteners in the United States has not “risen dramatically” in the last 35 years. In fact, during that period of time, as more High Fructose Corn Syrup has been consumed there has been a one for one decline in sucrose. Thus, the total amount of fructose consumed has only gone up approximately 15% during that time (2). This would, in no way, explain a tripling of hypertension.

    You also quote a mice study by these investigators where “Fructose feeding decreased salt excretion by the kidney and resulted in hypertension.” I am familiar with the work of this research team and their laboratory studies (including this one) have been performed using massive doses of pure fructose, which, as you know, is not normally consumed in the human diet. As I am sure you know, sucrose (the leading source of fructose in the American diet) and High Fructose Corn Syrup are both essentially 50% fructose and 50% glucose and very different from pure fructose which is, as the name suggests, 100% fructose.

    You go on to suggest that the replacement of sucrose in some products with High Fructose Corn Syrup has “increased fructose consumption in the diet.” First of all, it is important to point out that more sucrose is consumed in the United States each year than High Fructose Corn Syrup. Sucrose is the leading source of fructose in the diet. Worldwide, nine times as much sucrose as High Fructose Corn Syrup is consumed. Secondly, the two main forms of High Fructose Corn Syrup, HFCS-55 and HFCS-42, contain respectively 55% fructose and 42% fructose. Thus, there has been essentially no change in the proportion of fructose in the diet with the introduction of High Fructose Corn Syrup.

    It is also important to understand that the relationship between added sugars and blood pressure is very controversial with several studies finding no relationship (3,4). Jalal, et al also appear to have miscalculated the amount of fructose in soft drinks by ignoring the fact that half of the sweetener (whether it be sucrose or High Fructose Corn Syrup) is glucose. This miscalculation causes a dramatic underestimation of the amount of soft drinks a person would need to consume to achieve significant levels of fructose.

    Finally, my research team recently reported the first randomized, prospective, double blind trial comparing several normal population consumed levels of High Fructose Corn Syrup and sucrose (5). We found no changes in blood pressure during these 12-week, randomized, prospective, double blind studies. This confirms previous acute experiments we had done which also showed no increase in blood pressure.

    For all of these reasons, I believe it is important to make some corrections or at least offer some very significant cautions related to your article. I have been a cardiologist for the last 25 years and during this period of time, while we have made some progress in the area of blood pressure management, it has been a frustratingly difficult area of cardiovascular medicine. The only major associations which have really stood the test of time are the association between high blood pressure and obesity, high blood pressure and smoking, high blood pressure and increased sodium consumption, and high blood pressure and inactive lifestyle. There is no reason to postulate that we need another “smoking gun” to explain high blood pressure in the vast majority of people. The fructose hypothesis is an interesting one, but, by no means, established and probably incorrect.

    I believe at this point that we need to have an abundance of caution before we give people a sense that somehow there is something new that explains high blood pressure.

    Thank you for the opportunity to offer these comments.

    Sincerely,

    James M. Rippe, M.D.

    References

    1. Marriott BP, Cole N, Lee E. National Estimates of Dietary Fructose Intake Increased from 1977 to 2004 in the United States. J. Nutr. 2009; 139 1228S-1235S.

    2. White J. Straight talk about high-fructose corn syrup: What it is and what it ain’t. Am J Clin Nutr 88 (suppl):1716S, 2008.

    3. Van der Schaaf MR, Koomans HA, Joles JA. Dietary sucrose does not increase twenty-four-hour ambulatory blood pressure in patients with either essential hypertension or polycystic kidney disease. J Hypertens.1999;17:453– 454.

    4. Hallfrisch J, Reiser S, Prather ES. Blood lipid distribution of hyperinsulinemic men consuming three levels of fructose. Am J Clin Nutr. 1983;37:740 –748.

    5. Lowndes J, Kawieki D, Angelopoulos T, Rippe J. Components of the Metabolic Syndrome are not Affected Differently by Regular Consumption of Sucrose or High Fructose Corn Syrup. (Presented, Annual Meeting of the Endocrine Society, 2010).
    James  Rippe, M.D. James Rippe, M.D.
    Jul. 22, 2010 at 8:37am
  • To Dr. Rippe, paid consultant of corn refiners: I advise my students and clients to just give up high fructose corn syrup and any food that it is in--especially fast food. Just give it up for six to eight weeks, and the improvement in health and energy is amazing. Do you suggest this to your clients? Or will the corn refiners not let you?

    To the American public:
    The corn refiners (and doctors paid by them), snack food soft drink corporations (and research supported by them) do not have your health in mind because they are blinded by dollar signs. As individuals, we can take our own health as our responsibility.
    Remember, more energy means more motivation to exercise and move more.
    Why wait for research (that may be biased) when an individual can improve health immediately by giving up HFCS, fast food (has HFCS), and other drinks and foods that it is in? It works! It will only take six to eight weeks to check this out. Good health is worth it.

    If you wish to see bias, check out the sponsors of the American Dietetic Association. Just go to their website and discover the snack, soft drink, and candy companies that sponsor this organization. Horrifying!

    And beware of any doctor or dietitian, who "indicates" that consuming soft drinks is healthy or okay--for this person is certainly not concerned about your personal health.
    Zebe Zebe
    Jun. 20, 2011 at 1:18pm
Registered readers are invited to post a comment. To encourage fruitful discussion, please keep your comments relevant, brief and courteous. Offensive, irrelevant, nonsensical and commercial posts will not be published. (All links will be removed from comments.)

You must register with Science News to add a comment. To log-in click here. To register as a new user, follow this link.

Follow Us