Posted on 05/22/2011 11:11:23 AM PDT by DannyTN
My Dad always said, “if it comes in a bag or a box, don’t eat it.”
Grains have health benefits when used in moderation.
But can table sugar be made from the glucose and fructose in HFCS?
I can turn dissolved sugar back to crystalline sugar. Can you do the same with HFCS to get crystalline sugar.
Your earlier replies didn’t answer that, and I’m asking again. If the two are the same, why not? If they can be made, how so?
Good point. Can there be some truth, though, in their assessment of the damage done to the body by corn syrup, separate from economic reasons? I find where there is smoke, there can be fire. Their reasons do seem rational.
Sugar is digested by enzymes in the small intestines. Insulin is released to regulate blood glucose.
See Post. 40 re high taxes on imported sugar. May not apply in Europe.
I just bought some kaiser rolls today. They, too, have HFCS in them.
HFCS has replaced sucrose on a nearly one-for-one basis since the mid-70's.
Dr. Hyman, and others, may want to demonize HFCS to support whatever agenda it is they are peddling, however, anyone with any biochem or food science training will know that it's a bunch of BS.
Karo syrup is corn syrup. There’s a huge difference in Karo Syrup and HFCS.
I suppose. I don't see what the motive would be. HFCS have advantages over sucrose. Sucrose is already available without having to derive it from HFCS.
I can turn dissolved sugar back to crystalline sugar.
The term 'sugar' generally refers to sucrose. Crystalline sugar is sucrose.
If the two are the same, why not? If they can be made, how so?
If one were to make sucrose from HFCS, it would still be sucrose, and still have the same chemical composition.
Wow. Where to start?
OK, item by item.
First bogus item
1. “ Sugar in any form causes obesity and disease when consumed in pharmacologic doses “
If the relation between consumption of sugar and obesity/disease is CAUSAL, as you write, then people (all people) who consume sugar become obese and/or diseased. At worst it (EXCESSIVE sugar) CONTRIBUTES to those, and is certainly CORRELATED TO both. It is NOT, medically, a CAUSAL relationship. Additionally, your remark inserts the adjective “pharmacologic” (which is a nonsense word in this context) in front of “doses”. Pharmacologic simple means what is related to the study and science of ‘drugs’ and has no relation to the size, duration or effects of a “dose”. Bafflebag if you ask me.
Granted — eating “excessive” sugar is “bad”. We can debate what is too much ‘sugar’ and what makes it “bad”. But NOT starting with your #1 premise.
Second item
“HFCS and cane sugar are NOT biochemically identical”
Really? Who knew? a six carbon sugar (C6H12O6) and a 12 carbon sugar (C12H22O11) are not biochemically identical. WOW. Are you aware that LOTS of fruits and vegetables, including SUGAR CANE (as well as pears, sweet red peppers, apples and pineapples and HONEY) NATURALLY contain fructose, which indeed is IDENTICAL in structure and composition to the black-helicopter/ industrial-secret fructose from corn syrup (corn ‘juice’ naturally contains fructose, glucose and sucrose anyways)? Cane sugar (presuming you mean the refined product) is nearly 100% sucrose. The body does not metabolize sucrose until it hydrolyzes it with water (water-split) via gastric acids and fructase to form (gasp) glucose and FRUCTOSE. (I need the little running oh-noes.) One cannot foment a crisis because refined cane sugar and fructose are not identical, ESPECIALLY when the FIRST thing our bodies do is break SUCROSE into glucose and FRUCTOSE to start digesting it.
Third item.
“Fructose goes right to the liver and triggers lipogenesis (the production of fats like triglycerides and cholesterol)”
By you logic APPLES are quite fattening, and CAUSE disease, because, naturally, they are a key source of soluble FRUCTOSE!!! OH NOES!!!!!!
Did you forget about acetyl-CoA and something called glycogen synthesis, F1P, G3P, UDP, G6P etc?
FIRST the liver makes glycogen, THEN the pathway pushes intermediates over to triglyceride production —> yielding fats, etc.
You CANNOT omit key portions of carbohydrate/saccharide metabolism.
IF you ingest “too much” of ANY carbohydrate, be it a starch or sugar/saccharide, you will produce fat.
Do our upper intestines and general physiology react to, absorb and metabolize different saccharides differently? Absolutely. Is one saccharide inherently EVIL because it is industrially produced and different from cane sugar? NONSENSE. The FRUCTOSE in the apple-a-day is the same as the FRUCTOSE in your Coke.
It *IS* a sensible discussion to discern how much is too much. True for all foods, flavors and spirits, eh?
Fourth item
“We are consuming HFCS and sugar in pharmacologic quantities “
More bafflegab. Tell me, what is a “pharmacologic” quantity? It is probably easy to agree that 140# per person is arguably NOT a good thing. But don’t try to obfuscate good science with bombast.
Now, having written all that in opposition to the CONTENT of your post, let me agree with you in spirit.
Americans consume WAY too much junk. We consume foods, sugars included, plus salts, FAR in excess of need and sense. Look at the lard-a$$es on their scooters. LOOK at the emergency room. LOOK who is chronically ill from obesity and adult-onset Type 2 diabetes — soaking up medicaie monies. THAT **IS** caused by REALLY bad diets.
What I cannot go with you on is attacking FRUSTOSE as a sweetener. It is NOT inherently harmful or evil. When taken in amounts of equal sweetness, it can actually DECREASE calories consumed and our bodies metabolize FRUCTOSE quite nicely.
This is not about you. This is about getting at the truth around the ‘study’ you posted and the crap science it purports to present.
HArrumph.
Tell me how I can make sucrose (crystalline table sugar) which comprises of glucose and fructose, starting with HFCS (again comprising of glucose and fructose). If they are both glucose and fructose in solution, this should be simple, right? Tell me the steps to follow.
“If you want to lose weight, cut out the grain and you will be shocked at the results. Just ask yourself, how do we fatten livestock?? Answer; stuff them with grain.”
Specifically corn...
Thanks for the post!
Wow, a doctor who apparently never heard that correlation is not causation. No, wait, a doctor who not only apparently never heard that correlation is not causation, but also doesn't bother establishing any actual correlation. Note also that he doesn't name the time period he's talking about.
For example, it's very likely that the same period of time also saw a huge increase in the number of tattoos on the average person. Does that mean tattoos cause obesity, that obesity causes tattoos, or that HFCS causes tattoos?
Danny. i know you have the best of intentions.
But this article is garbage.
TMc
Actually, the ration is a lowest cost ration. Corn is usually cheaper than wheat, oats, barley or whatever. If wheat were cheaper the effect would be similar. The point is that excess grain consumption is detrimental to humans and livestock alike. It has little to do with fructose vs sucrose—both have similar caloric density.
Any carbohydrate not metabolized is stored as fat, Any carb.
What does the food pyrmid have the consumer eating? Nine to eleven serving per day of grains and another three to five of fruits and vegetables.
Twenty years ago the government said the culprit was fat, but carbs couldn’t hurt us. Load up on the pasta!
So America did and obesity soared. We are overweight because we are getting very poor advice from the government Health Dept.
Still more appalling, diabetics are still being advised to take in as many carbs as a non-diabetic!
Something must change in the “nutrition” industry. They are very reluctant to admit they may be wrong.
Cite the study, please.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.