Posted on 05/11/2010 8:07:54 AM PDT by Patriot1259
Fish oil supplements are constantly touted for their seemingly miraculous health benefits because they contain omega-3 fatty acids, according to ABC News. For people with heart disease, omega-3 acids can greatly reduce the risk of heart attack or dying from heart failure. Consumers should not necessarily avoid fish oil supplements because of PCB concerns from elevated levels of toxins like mercury in the ocean. But if someone has a low risk of heart disease and is concerned, then he or she could stop taking the supplements until further testing is done on specific fish oil supplements. follow the guidelines from the American Heart Association to find other sources of omega-3 acids such as fatty fish.
(Excerpt) Read more at thecypresstimes.com ...
Huh? What does this mean? What shouldn't we be deceived about? If the body doesn't recognize a sugar substitute as a carbohydrate, how will it be digested "far down the digestive tract?"
High fructose sugars are regarded as worse in this regard than ordinary sucrose, because they are more readily converted into fat.
Regarded worse by whom, nutritional illiterates? This statement also makes no sense. What else in your post should we be suspect of?
I’ve put it in red sauce for lasagna — can’t taste it. I’ve sprinkled it on roasted vegetables (I love taking a ziplock and putting in the vegetables, two tablespoons of Olive Oil, minced garlic, sea salt and ground pepper and coating them all). Then on a jelly roll pan lined with foil, I lay them out flat and roast for 10-20 minutes depending on the choice of vegetables and when done — either a squirt of fresh lemon or balsamic vinegar and sprinkle of flax seed. We’re eating vegetables we never ate before — peppers, squash, asparagus roasted - yum, anything.
Do not be deceived by sugar substitutes, especially sugar alcohols, that do not affect the blood sugar levels because they are digested far down the digestive tract.
(Huh? What does this mean? What shouldn’t we be deceived about? If the body doesn’t recognize a sugar substitute as a carbohydrate, how will it be digested “far down the digestive tract?”)
They are carbohydrates, and they are digested, but they are digested far more gradually than sucrose. Labeling rules for sugar substitutes were written with diabetics in mind, so since these carbohydrates did not cause the dramatic fluctuations in blood sugar that sucrose did, they were disregarded as important labeling information. However, on those restricting carbohydrate intake, they do matter.
High fructose sugars are regarded as worse in this regard than ordinary sucrose, because they are more readily converted into fat.
Regarded worse by whom, nutritional illiterates? This statement also makes no sense. What else in your post should we be suspect of?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fructose
“Fructose exists in foods as either a monosaccharide (free fructose) or as a unit of a disaccharide (sucrose). Free fructose is absorbed directly by the intestine; however, when fructose is consumed in the form of sucrose, digestion occurs entirely in the upper small intestine.”
“Fructose passes through the small intestine virtually unchanged, then enters the portal vein and is directed toward the liver.”
“Uptake of fructose by the liver is not regulated by insulin.”
“The medical profession thinks fructose is better for diabetics than sugar,” says Meira Field, Ph.D., a research chemist at United States Department of Agriculture, “but every cell in the body can metabolize glucose. However, all fructose must be metabolized in the liver. The livers of the rats on the high fructose diet looked like the livers of alcoholics, plugged with fat and cirrhotic.”
“When fructose reaches the liver,” says Dr. William J. Whelan, a biochemist at the University of Miami School of Medicine, “the liver goes bananas and stops everything else to metabolize the fructose.” Eating fructose instead of glucose results in lower circulating insulin and leptin levels, and higher of ghrelin levels after the meal. Since leptin and insulin decrease appetite and ghrelin increases appetite, some researchers suspect that eating large amounts of fructose increases the likelihood of weight gain.”
“Excessive fructose consumption is also believed to contribute to the development of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease.”
You may now apologize for your rudeness.
The sugar alcohols tend to pass through the GI system and exit with the stool. Because it is osmotically active, it will loosen the stool. At higher doses, it acts as an effective laxitive. There is some metabolism of the sugar alcohols by fecal bacteria but at that point, the sugar is fermented into gas rather than absorbed.
My wife’s poor grandmother suffered greatly when her well intentioned daughter substited sugar free candy for her regular candy. The poor old woman ended up in a nursing home for awhile because of intractible diarrhea and incontinence. After stopping the sugar free candy, she was able to move back home.
Fructose may indeed be a bad actor, but I would like to see more data. I remember when coffee got the blame for a multitude of ills.
That’s odd because the following is more consistent with what I have heard for years:
“Sugar alcohols are only partially absorbed from the human small intestine. The percentage
absorbed varies with each sugar alcohol and in some cases with the presence of food. The
absorption rate is slow, variable, usually minimal and may have no significant effect on blood
glucose (2008 CPGs) and so sugar alcohols should be subtracted from the total carbohydrate
when carbohydrate counting.
The sugar alcohol not absorbed in the small bowel is fermented by colonic bacteria to produce
short chain fatty acids. These short chain fatty acids are absorbed and provide energy to the
body. In this way, lactitol, which is completely malabsorbed in humans, produces 2 kcal/g.
Because of these fermentation by-products, the consumption of large amounts of sugar
alcohols can lead to temporary abdominal discomfort such as bloating and diarrhea.”
http://www.diabetes.ca/files/for-professionals/sugar-alcohol.pdf
I didn’t have time to read through the article you posted. I am curious if they are measuring sorbital in the body or if they used radio tagged sorbitol and just looked for the tagged carbon in the blood. It would make a difference in how it affects the body.
I am familiar (personally) with the side effects of sugar alcohols, and they get tricky in measurement, because serious studies in humans would only use single portions, like “serving size 1 piece of candy”, which are unrealistic. Most people might eat half a dozen or more at one sitting, as an example.
Importantly, one of the sugar alcohols, Xylitol, is extremely toxic to dogs.
http://www.snopes.com/critters/crusader/xylitol.asp
It is found in food, pharmaceuticals and OTC “sugar free” products.
One of the weirder sugar substitutes, not a sugar alcohol, is Stevia, from a South American plant. Odd stuff indeed. It is so intensely sweet (300x sugar) that it can overwhelm the sweet taste buds. It also has some unexplored relationship with the bodies calcium, and may reduce the risk of osteoporosis.
Speaking of weird sweetener facts. There is no proof that Cyclomate was a carcinogen but it was banned. There is proof that Saccharin is a carcinogen in animal models but it was given a pass.
Our government in action.
Then you went on to say that these sugar substitutes are carbohydrates.
The most popular sugar substitutes today are aspartame and sucralose. Sugar alcohols make lousy sweeteners. I don't know why anyone would use them when there are products like sucralose and aspartame available.
Sucralose isn't a carbohydrate. Your body doesn't recognize it as a sugar which is why it isn't metabolized.
and they are digested, but they are digested far more gradually than sucrose.
Sucralose isn't digested. Aspartame is made up of phenylalanine, aspartic acid and methanol. Are you sure these three chemicals are digested far more gradually than sucrose?
Given the make up of aspartame, why do you believe it contains any carbohydrates? I'm drinking a Diet Coke right now sweetened with aspartame. It shows 0% carbohydrates. Like I said, what are you talking about?
Labeling rules for sugar substitutes were written with diabetics in mind, so since these carbohydrates did not cause the dramatic fluctuations in blood sugar that sucrose did, they were disregarded as important labeling information.
Sucralose, Aspartame and Saccharin are all sugar substitutes but they are not carbohydrates.
However, on those restricting carbohydrate intake, they do matter.
Anyone using the most popular sugar substitutes, and looking to restrict carbohydrates, will have nothing to worry about.
“Fructose exists in foods as either a monosaccharide (free fructose) or as a unit of a disaccharide (sucrose). Free fructose is absorbed directly by the intestine; however, when fructose is consumed in the form of sucrose, digestion occurs entirely in the upper small intestine.”
Yet the glycemic index for sucrose and HFCS fall into the same range (55~60). The satiation profiles of both are also the same. Go figure.
“The medical profession thinks fructose is better for diabetics than sugar,” says Meira Field, Ph.D., a research chemist at United States Department of Agriculture,
This guy has a PhD and he thinks the medical profession doesn't realize that sugar (sucrose) is made up of 50% fructose?
“Uptake of fructose by the liver is not regulated by insulin.”
Ok. We've known this to be so for a long time. So what?
The livers of the rats on the high fructose diet looked like the livers of alcoholics, plugged with fat and cirrhotic.”
LOL! Yeah, researchers force lab rats to rely on fructose for 70% (or more) of their total daily caloric intake and then marvel at the fact that bad things happen to them. That might be an effective method for finding grant money but it has nothing to do with finding the truth.
Eating fructose instead of glucose results in lower circulating insulin and leptin levels, and higher of ghrelin levels after the meal.
If people consumed fructose by itself this might be important. But since fructose is consumed with glucose, this is meaningless. Be aware that legitimate research comparing the consumption of high fructose corn syrup and sucrose have found no difference in levels of circulating insulin or in levels of ghrelin and leptin.
There are two types of HFCS being commercialized today. One product offers 55% fructose the other product offers 42% fructose. Sucrose (sugar) contains 50% fructose. If HFCS is bad for you then sucrose must also be bad for you.
Your post makes it look like you don't even realize that table sugar is half fructose. Add this to your misunderstanding of sugar substitutes and you can understand why I posted what I did. If you are going to make statements here with such certitude then, at a minimum, you should get your facts straight.
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.