Is high Allulose consumption significantly harmful to humans?
6
41
130
2050
84%
chance

On first principles, it's an epimer (a sort of stereoisomer) of fructose which unlike all other monosaccharides bypasses the liver first pass effect which evolved to protect the body from toxins. Renal elimination is the only way the body can get rid of it (diabetics also get rid of much glucose this way). Chronically high levels of glucose in the blood are very toxic, mostly by glucose randomly attaching itself to proteins and breaking them. Fructose does the same thing except it's 5x more reactive than glucose and the liver metabolizes all of it in the first pass. (we've evolved to exclude all common monosaccharides from the bloodstream, except glusose in the precise quantities necessary for energy production and storage) Based on all that, my credence for allulose being at least somewhat harmful is 95%. However it remains unclear whether the magnitude of the harm is sufficient to show up in weak studies, and most of those studies will be funded by the manufacturer. It is going to be dose dependent and I don't know whether the renal elimination half life is faster than other monosaccharides. This market is about whether there will be a reputable meta-analysis (by Cochrane or similar) purporting that allulose is harmful to humans, before 2050.

Get Ṁ1,000 play money
Sort by:
bought Ṁ10 of NO

Observational studies of foods comparing to e.g. cancer risk, especially for smal lcomponents of a diet like artificial sweeteners, don't work very well.

I have no idea what 'significant harm' means. Eating allulose instead of an apple, or an all-natural steak, or a multivitamin, is probably harmful just by opportunity cost. And opportunity cost is real - eating an apple is "healthier" than eating pure sugar in the same ratio the apple, even if you eat the same amount of pure sugar you'd eat of apple sugar. But I don't think that's what you're asking about.

(warning: math might be wrong) I read this and it claims allulose is more reactive in glycation than glucose or fructose, but without a ratio. I looked into the paper, and am somewhat confused about how they draw conclusons, but I think?? the ratio is like 1.3:1.1:1 (from Fig 3). Which isn't that much. From this, orally, The maximum blood concentration (48.5±15.6 μg/g) was observed at 1 hour. Excretion to urine was 20% within 1 hour and 33% within 2 hours. This was after administering 100 mg/kg body weight. This doesn't seem like a lot compared to the normal (79 to 110 mg/dL) times (1 dL / (100 g) ~ 1 mg/g.

From somewhere else, "The half-life of intravenously administered fructose in hu-mans is 18 min, as opposed to 43 min for glucose". However, for allulose, "Following
intravenous administration, blood concentration was decreased with the half-life=57 minutes,
and the excretion to urine was up to almost 50% within 1 hour"

So I'm not seeing significant danger here. mild(?) increase in glycation rate compared to glucose/fructose, mild(?)ly higher half life, combined with significantly lower allulose doses (i think?) than glucose doses in the diet, it's probably fine

but lol idk, there are a bunch of reasons this might be wrong that i won't belabor on bc it doesnt seem too srs

predicts YES

@jacksonpolack I think you are wrong about the lower doses. Allulose is somewhat less sweet than sugar, so you have to use even more of it. And the rest of your argument seems to imply allulose is worse than an equal quantity of sugar

sold Ṁ16 of NO

I think the calculations I did above are wrong, but

I still would guess allulose is fine in amounts people consume it at, but

Most nutrition meta-analyses on topics with popular interest are 'poor evidence' imo, including the high-quality ones, so they're either wrong or right for wrong reasons. So even if allulose is good I think there's a decent chance a first-glance high quality meta analysis saying it is good comes out

bought Ṁ10 of YES

It seems like most synthetic fructose/glucose analogues have negative consequences when consumed over a long period of time (recent whole-population studies in France showing elevated cancer rates associated with artificial sweetener consumption). However, allulose is not permitted in food in the EU and has only been allowed in the US since 2015, and is only included in a few products. I would guess that any study on human side effects will come out in the late 2040s.

bought Ṁ100 of YES

My credence for allulose being more harmful than an equal quantity of glucose in non-diabetics is 90%. My credence for allulose being more harmful than an equal quantity of glucose in diabetics is 50%

predicts NO

If allulose is 1.5x as ... glycating ... as an equivalent amount of glucose, and it makes up 10-20% of your total energy intake, I don't think anyone will notice the negative effects, so i don't think that counts as 'significant'

predicts YES

@jacksonpolack Holding concentrations constant it's >5x more glycating than glucose, and the integral of the blood concentration after you consume it is going to be ~1.5x higher than when you consume an equal quantity of glucose. So probably if you took a normal diet and replaced all the glucose with allulose for years you should start seeing some diabetes-like damage to the body.