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.
typo = not bounded together = not bound or bonded together
How long do you think it takes to "unbind" sucrose?
But your body handles hydrolyzed sucrose (sugar) and HFCS in the same manner. Your body doesn't know the source of the fructose and glucose nor does it care.
HFCS has the same sweet taste as sucrose from cane sugar, but its production process is chemical-laden and much more complicated.
Chemical laden? LOL!
The end result is glucose and fructose. Unless you think the glucose and fructose in sucrose is somehow different than the glucose and fructose in HFCS?
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
You forgot the formula of HFCS, used mostly in processed food and baking, that is 42% fructose and 55% glucose. Is this version of HFCS better for our health than regular old table sugar that is a 50-50 split?
Because both are absorbed into your bloodstream more rapidly than when they need to be unbound in your digestive track.
How much more rapidly? I ask because the glycemic index for sucrose and HFCS fall into the same range (55~60). It is also a fact that the satiety profiles of sucrose and HFCS are the same. I'd be happy to link you to the studies that make this clear.
The fructose goes right to your liver where it is converted into triglycerides.
And for decades our institutions of higher learning have taught that the liver converts fructose to glucose.....the things one can learn on FR.
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.
Really? Then I suppose you can offer up a study that shows us how the consumption of caffeine also leads to Type II diabetes. Since caffeine consumption stimulates the release of insulin, it shouldn't be a problem for you to show us the studies that implicate caffeine consumption in causing insulin resistance and Type II diabetes. Or, you might just be wrong.
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.
Is that right? How is it then, that the satiety profiles of sucrose and HFCS are the nearly identical?
Free fructose from HFCS (and not fructose found in fruit) steals ATP from your intestinal lining causing body-wide inflammation.
This is quality nonsense....and incredibly wrong.
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.
No wonder you think sugar/HFCS is just like cocaine and needs to be regulated. You are extremely confused about biochemistry, human nutrition and human physiology. According to your sources, we should be a nation of disease ridden invalids. Instead, we're living longer and healthier lives than at any other time in our history. You need new sources...or at least one that understands that glucose and fructose from hydrolyzed sugar is managed no differently by your body than glucose and fructose from HFCS.
As for your Princeton study.......that's the kind of nonsense you end up with when a Professor of Psychology runs an experiment that should have been left to the biochemistry department.
The Princeton study is rife with problems. First of all, ad libitum feeding is notoriously unreliable for ensuring same calories consumed. The authors also don't seem to be concerned with the inherent unreliability of rat studies translating to humans.
The researchers found that rats fed HFCS for 12 hours a day gained more weight. That being the case, why didn’t the rats fed HFCS for 24 hours also gain more weight? They were fed HFCS for a full 12 hours more, yet didn’t gain any more weight than the rats fed HFCS for 12 hours. This is a serious inconsistency in the results that the researchers could never explain away.
When converting the rat intakes of HFCS to human proportions, the calories gained from high fructose corn syrup would be equivalent to about 3000 kcal/day from that one single source. To compare, adult humans consume about 2,000 calories per day from all dietary sources. The rat intakes in this study would be equivalent to a human drinking a total of 20 cans of 12 ounce sodas per day. How many people do you know that drink 20 cans of soda per day? If you overwhelm the body with anything, bad things can happen. People die from drinking too much water, after all.
The Princeton findings were attractive to those who care little for the truth and only want to create alarm. It also plays well to the agenda of those who demonize a particular food ingredient without any knowledge of food science or nutrition. But, best of all, research like this creates enough concern that the fedgov makes money flow to the authors so that this "problem" can be studied further. That's exactly what's going on here. Junk science, fear creation, and the subsequent money grabbing that can make a professor's life so much more comfortable in the world of academia. There are rats both inside and outside of the cages.