That is what Lustig also claims, but not sure if Mase, who bitterly disagrees with his overall thesis, agrees.
Since both sucrose (cane sugar) and HFCS are made up of the same two chemicals (glucose and fructose), and appear in almost identical proportions, how is it that one can increase triglyceride levels while the other does not?
Lustig doesn't offer a "thesis." He offers junk science based on some personal agenda or incredible ignorance. Either way, we should refer to it as "crap."
If you are interested in the actual explanation for why he claims, it is in that video I posted to above at around the 1:06:08 mark. Obviously I cannot do it justice the total explanation is in the 1:03:40-1:07:00 mark or so, so if you have 3 minutes to spare you can see the exact explanation, and more if you are so inclined.
However the jist of his claim is that when Glucose and Fructose are metabolized they turn, in part, to the Protein kinase JNK1. With Glucose, that protein breaks down to create, in part, Tyrosine IRS1. But with Fructose, JNK1 breaks down into Serine IRS1, which is an inactive agent (I assume these are amino acids by the descriptions).
Insofar as the LDL/vLDL, he claims that Fructose, at the 1:03:45 mark, through metabolisis breaks down into Xylose Phosphate, which breaks into at least 3 enzymes which stimulate novolipogenesis (new fat cell creation) which ultimately ends up packaged to vLDL creating dislipidemia. Again, it's his theory, if you can watch it for 3 minutes he can explain it better than I obviously.
Also, re-emphasizing my other point in #100: So, even though too much sugar is not good for us, the body seems to handle it better than HFCS.
Since both sucrose (cane sugar) and HFCS are made up of the same two chemicals (glucose and fructose), and appear in almost identical proportions, how is it that one can increase triglyceride levels while the other does not?
Firstly, to make it clear, it isn't my personal opinion, but what is claimed by various professionals (experts, researchers, etc..) in Australia too:
HFCS, is derived from highly processed corn, a starchy grain. The glucose yielded from the processing is further processed to produce a high percentage of fructose. HFCS has the same sweet taste as sucrose from cane sugar, but its production process is chemical-laden and much more complicated.
Sucrose (from cane sugar) is a 50-50 mix of glucose and fructose bound together tightly as a disaccharide. It must be broken apart in your digestive tract. HFCS, at minimum, is a 45-55 mix of glucose and fructose Not bound together. Each is a separate monosaccharide.
Why separate monosaccharide (not bounded together) make it worse? Because both are absorbed into your bloodstream more rapidly than when they need to be unbound in your digestive track. The fructose goes right to your liver where it is converted into triglycerides. Triglycerides are carried through your blood to fat cells for storage. Triglycerides contribute to inflammation and plaque build-up. If HFCS intake is reduced we'll also cut down on belly fat.
The glucose, meanwhile, spikes blood sugar and creates a rapid insulin response. Constant insulin spikes can lead to insulin resistance which is the basis of Type II Diabetes. During the insulin response the hormone Grehlin is suppressed. This is the hormone that signals the brain that you are full. No satiety signal, no need to stop eating..
Free fructose from HFCS (and not fructose found in fruit) steals ATP from your intestinal lining causing body-wide inflammation. Inflammation causes damage to artery walls. Cholesterol, produced in your own liver, is forced to repair this damage. The build-up of cholesterol in arteries is known as plaque. When plaque ruptures, it causes a blood clot. A blood clot in a coronary artery causes a heart attack. A blood clot in the brain causes a stroke.
In summary, HFCS spikes your blood sugar (diabetes), elevates your triglycerides (heart disease, body fat), causes inflammation (heart attack and stroke), and causes you to eat more (obesity). Regular sugar does all of this except cause body-wide inflammation, and it just doesn’t do it quite as rapidly.
Don't know if you're familiar with Princeton University Research? Two experiments were with Rats, but the results are interesting. Excerpts below:
Rats with access to high-fructose corn syrup gained significantly more weight than those with access to table sugar, even when their overall caloric intake was the same.
"Some people have claimed that high-fructose corn syrup is no different than other sweeteners when it comes to weight gain and obesity, but our results make it clear that this just isn't true, at least under the conditions of our tests," said psychology professor Bart Hoebel, who specializes in the neuroscience of appetite, weight and sugar addiction. "When rats are drinking high-fructose corn syrup at levels well below those in soda pop, they're becoming obese -- every single one, across the board. Even when rats are fed a high-fat diet, you don't see this; they don't all gain extra weight."
This creates a fascinating puzzle. The rats in the Princeton study became obese by drinking high-fructose corn syrup, but not by drinking sucrose. The critical differences in appetite, metabolism and gene expression that underlie this phenomenon are yet to be discovered, but may relate to the fact that excess fructose is being metabolized to produce fat, while glucose is largely being processed for energy or stored as a carbohydrate, called glycogen, in the liver and muscles.
So, I don't know.. but guess "moderation" as always is the other factor.