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.
As it is stated in the link (#118), the Princeton research was a joint effort by Princeton Department of Psychology & the Princeton Neuroscience Institute - the results were published in the journal Pharmacology, Biochemistry and Behavior. Bart Hoebel is a psychology professor, who specializes in the neuroscience of appetite, weight and sugar addiction.
However, you speak with distinct personal authority on these subjects, so would be interested to know your profession, specialties, credentials, and any related experiments and/or research you've conducted, perhaps the ones that have been published in bona fide medical journals?
Did you offer your expertise & 'formal', or even 'informal' critique of the Princeton research to the people who conducted the experiments, or those who published the results? Did you discuss it? What was the outcome?
Since you also offered, why don't you provide links to some of those studies that support your claims & points that you pose as questions?
No wonder you think sugar/HFCS is just like cocaine and needs to be regulated.
Really?! Can you quote where I said that?
Personally, I'd welcome those who have proven expertise in certain areas, want to impart knowledge or be critical of others work or findings in a professional manner. After all, there is still much to be discovered, shared & learned. But the tone in your post is derogatory & your response comes across as not only obviously dismissive, but also politically motivated.
Interesting that, for the most part in this thread, you've consistently accused others, whose position is different to yours, of having an agenda or being nuts.
According to your sources, we should be a nation of disease ridden invalids.
Not "disease ridden invalids", but the focus is on "obesity", and it wasn't "my" sources, but your own in the US. Had you read the link in #118, you would've noticed this:
In the 40 years since the introduction of high-fructose corn syrup as a cost-effective sweetener in the American diet, rates of obesity in the U.S. have skyrocketed, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In 1970, around 15 percent of the U.S. population met the definition for obesity; today, roughly one-third of the American adults are considered obese, the CDC reported. High-fructose corn syrup is found in a wide range of foods and beverages, including fruit juice, soda, cereal, bread, yogurt, ketchup and mayonnaise. On average, Americans consume 60 pounds of the sweetener per person every year.
There are many articles you can find on the web, written by various American health professionals, who make similar claims based on percentages.
I travel regularly to the US since my husband is American and we've family in different parts of the US. So, even by simply looking around, we see many more "obese" people in the US than we see in Australia. Whether it is solely due to HFCS intake or not, I don't know, but, comparatively speaking, it is very obvious.