Posted on 07/19/2009 6:13:33 PM PDT by Coleus
thanks, bfl
Sugar Is Back on Food Labels, This Time as a Selling Point
"Both sugar and high-fructose corn syrup are made from glucose and fructose. The level of fructose is about 5 percent higher in the corn sweetener."
That's wrong. Cane sugar or beet sugar is sucrose which is a one to one compound of fructose and glucose. I used to think what's the big deal with HFCS? Both fructose and glucose are 6 carbon sugars and have the same amount of calories. That was until I read some papers describing de novo lipogenesis when fructose is metabolized.
According to Maureen Storey, Ph.D., CFNAP director and a member of the study team, there are three types of HFCS products (HFCS-55, HFCS-42, and HFCS-90), but only HFCS-55 and HFCS-42 are commonly used as sweeteners. HFCS-90 is mainly used in the production of HFCS-55, but is seldom directly added to foods and beverages. The composition of HFCS-55 (55% fructose and 42% glucose) is very similar to that of sucrose (50% fructose and 50% glucose). HFCS-42 (42% fructose and 53% glucose) actually contains less fructose than sucrose does.
So in HFCS-55, it's fructose 55% to glucose 42%, that's almost one third more fructose compared to glucose.
HFCS-55 is used mainly in beverages, such as carbonated and non-carbonated soft drinks; HFCS-42 is used to sweeten a wide variety of foods.
Here's more.
There are four links at the source.
FReepmail me if you want on or off the diabetes ping list.
Source please?
What were we talking about? I forgot.
That's wrong. Cane sugar or beet sugar is sucrose which is a one to one compound of fructose and glucose. I used to think what's the big deal with HFCS? Both fructose and glucose are 6 carbon sugars and have the same amount of calories. That was until I read some papers describing de novo lipogenesis when fructose is metabolized.
No, that's not wrong at all. What is it about de novo lipogenesis that has you so concerned?
Does it sounds scary because when lab rats are fed 60% of their total calories from fructose, when humans only average about 8% of their total calories from fructose, all sorts of bad things happen to the lab rats? Good grief. Who knew drinking an extra glass of fruit juice every day could cause so many ills. I wonder what kinds of sicknesses lab rats would develop if they were fed nothing but NACL?
So in HFCS-55, it's fructose 55% to glucose 42%, that's almost one third more fructose compared to glucose.
HFCS-55 is used mainly in beverages, such as carbonated and non-carbonated soft drinks; HFCS-42 is used to sweeten a wide variety of foods
So HFCS 42 is ok because it has a lot less fructose than glucose in it while HFCS 55 is bad for us because it has more fructose than glucose. So then, is straight corn syrup really really good for us because it's 97% glucose?
I was wondering about that as I drink smoothies every day, mostly with fruit. I think they are talking about fruit drinks (concentrated)? Although I have read that a person should limit their fruit intake and never understood why.
neverdem, I hope you won't mind my introducing Mase to this thread -- we have just been discussing HFCS here. He doesn't think it's a big deal; I have doubts, but am not conversant either way.
Please refrain from any flaming, such is EXPRESSLY NOT my intent. I just happened to notice both of you have seemed interested in the past.
My apologies if you happen already to be best friends, or (worse!) mortal enemies.
Cheers!
I just noticed Mase was *PINGED* to this very post #22.
Mea effin' culpa and all that.
Cheers!
Cheers!
“People, get off the white breads, fried foods and sugars. It is killing you. Eat whole grains and real food.”
How is it that our ancestors, back to nncient times (the Romans for example) managed to live on diets that consisted mostly of bread or some form of it. That included white bread and dark grains. Ir waS not chock full of additives or weird chemicals, but it was grains, and it was bread. whole grains, even if white, are good. All over the world people eat bread. All of my relatives ate a lifetime of bread, and most lived past 70 years, many into their late 80’s or early 90’s. They ate Butternut bread and Wonder bread too. I just don’t understand this latest bias and fad against bread. Fiber is good.
Bake your own bread. Anyone can do it now with bread machines. I know, I recently started making the bulk of my own bread in my bread machine. Tastes great and you can control what goes into it. I refuse to jump on the anti-bread bandwagon. You just need to eat it in moderation, like any other food. And pasta too. I love my protein as well. Again, moderation should be the operative word (not so easy for some, including myself, I must admit). But to select out a food that has been a staple throughout history for modern day vilification is ridiculous, IMHO.
By white bread, I meant non-whole grain processed breads. I was not vilifying all bread, just the processed crap that has no nutrition and is just quickly processed by our bodies into sugar. Sorry if my terminology was not precise.
According to Wikipedia, the most widely used form of HFCS is 55% fructose. That means theat the fructose/glucose ratio is 22% higher than regular sugar.
I have no opinions about HFCS, but that study sounds downright goofy. Floating rats vs. floating rats with sugar. Lots to learn there.
Note, I am NOT SAYING that eating alot of HFCS is not "bad" for you, what I am saying is that for all intents and purposes, I believe it is just about the same thing as eating too much sugar. IMHO, we simply eat too much simple sugars, but mostly, WESTERN MAN EATS TOO MUCH FOOD and gets too little exercise. Simply as that. There is no bogey man out there, no conspiracies. Portion sizes have increased greatly, and life has gotten too easy.
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.