Yes, carbonyls are highly reactive and could play a role in diabetes. Ho may have found something important here. Then again, maybe not. We'll have to wait to find out. And, as you know, most research ends up being meaningless. In the meantime, let's deal with what we know to be factual.
I agree that price-driven considerations flood us with HFCS by the way, and that major agribusiness is more concerned with cost and shelf-life than the salubrious (see Calvin and Hobbes) quality of our food.
I don't agree with this statement at all. You've offered absolutely no evidence that the food industry is more concerned with cost and shelf life than with the "salubrious." This is fact free nonsense. If you could prove there was anything unwholesome about HFCS, as a replacement for sucrose, you'd prove it here. Conclusion without evidence.....and you were a scientist?
A couple of other points which I have never seen addressed satisfactorally...
1) Sucrose is 50-50 fructose-glocose; HFCS is 55% fructose. Is that 5% significant biochemically (i.e. does it flood a chemical pathway, or switch on other pathways for some reason)?
Significant biochemically? Please. Are you aware that there is another commercialized form of HFCS that's only 42% fructose? Is that one better for you than the 55% fructose product? Fructose is cleared by another pathway, as opposed to glucose, but they both reach the Krebs cycle at the same level (3x2 carbon fragments).
2) Does the body break up the HFCS into the monomers at a different rate than it does sucrose?
Why would this even matter? The Glycemic Index for sucrose and HFCS fall in the 55-60 range. The satiation profiles of both, for the purposes of this discussion, are the same.
No hand waving, please. Has anyone bothered to look? And is the biochemical response different in the thin, the slightly overweight, the obese?
There I think Sears is engaging in "marketing" either to sensationalize, sell books or make his material more accessible to the public. I've lent out my copy of The Zone but IIRC he shows that arachidonic acid is a precursor to a number of inflammatory messengers, and so he takes the liberty of saying it behaves like a hormone.
That's a polite way of saying Sears is lying. Creating fear by misrepresenting the results of "research", or the research itself, must help him sell his books.
Also, have you read the book Mastering Leptin by Richards and Richards? The library had a recall on it before I could absorb all its contents, but it seemed to say the timing of different types of meals influence the release of leptin, and hence, one's hunger (in addition to the insulin, glucagon, etc. etc.)
I was getting toasted to a crisp from both sides in a crevo flamewar.
That, and I'm still "digesting" (har!) your posts.
I appreciate your taking the time to look up stuff from the peer-review lit (and it looks like talking to professional chemist friends).
Cheers!
I'm *DEEPLY* hurt you didn't mention Calvin and Hobbes!
The cost and shelf life was a *general* comment (my bad) -- I was thinking mainly of hydrogenated oils when I said it, with a small side order of "HFCS is cheaper than cane sugar."
Significant biochemically? Please. Are you aware that there is another commercialized form of HFCS that's only 42% fructose? Is that one better for you than the 55% fructose product? Fructose is cleared by another pathway, as opposed to glucose, but they both reach the Krebs cycle at the same level (3x2 carbon fragments).
I had forgotten about the 42% HFCS -- it's been years since I dealt with it, and that was indirect. I was wondering whether the body used different methods to *split* the sucrose as opposed to the HFCS, and if the different concentrations resulting in the bloodstream might subtly affect any cellular receptors different. By analogy, some people get instant headaches just *thinking* of MSG; if there are individual differences in sensitivity to different sugars, it might explain some of the societal obesity. But that'd be devilishly difficult to prove given timing, portion sizes, etc. etc. Just surmising, not attempting a declarative statement.
Why would this even matter? The Glycemic Index for sucrose and HFCS fall in the 55-60 range. The satiation profiles of both, for the purposes of this discussion, are the same.
See my last paragraph -- not satiety, but metabolism fat storage. Just wondering: you know, as both leptin and ghrelin used to be unknown, and still aren't familiar to the general public, the idea popped into my head there still may be internal workings as yet unstudied. (Nutrisystem is just getting around to popularizing "good carbs" vs. "bad carbs" for example.)
From Martine Perrigue and colleagues at the University of Washington: One question is whether HFCS-sweetened beverages have a different satiety profile from sucrose-sweetened ones. This study examined the relative impact of 16 oz. beverage preloads on motivational ratings and energy intakes at a test meal, using a within-subject design. Participants were 19 men and 18 women, aged 20-30 y.
Thanks -- a good start, but only 37 people, all in their 20's? Alas! the perils of medical studies and small sample sizes! (...also no mention of controls on size/type of breakfast, fitness level of participants, exercise type, duration, time *during* this study, and what happened when the drinks were consumed *instead of* food. Not trying to make excuses, but the real world population has a lot of variables. All the same, I'm glad someone started to look.
That's a polite way of saying Sears is lying. Creating fear by misrepresenting the results of "research", or the research itself, must help him sell his books.
I didn't think he as doing it to inspire fear, but to water down the science for the general public. Without having his book at hand, I can't comment further.
The study found "no differences in the metabolic effects" of HFCS and sucrose in this short-term study, and called for further similar studies of obese individuals and males. ("Similar effects of high fructose corn syrup and sucrose consumption on circulating levels of glucose, leptin, insulin and ghrelin,"
Again, a good start, but it'd be interesting to look at obese people, men, and longer-term effects. (E.g. type 2 diabetes, or "Syndrome X" (as I've heard it called), don't show up right away). Again, I'm glad someone is starting to look. Thanks for letting me know.
Cheers!