Funny how I’m “incorrect on so many things” and all I get told is that it is your opinion. Never mind your abuse of scripture.
Glycemic index reveals nothing, not even relating to how much insulin a body produces in response to a certain food. Incidentally, the average glycemic index of fructose is 19 while that of sucrose is 68, so why did you throw a lie at me, I’d like to know. Never mind not understanding that weight percent of certain ingredients does not speak to their reactivity or acidity/alkalinity, such as in honey.
If you don’t know what “buffering agent” means, please look it up. These are agents that prevent a massive shift towards a low pH during a reaction, and actually maintain a certain pH within the system. So the HCl within the stomach will be more likely to react with the buffers than directly with the fructose.
Calling HFCS what it is—an unnatural industrial product—is not the same as saying “fruits, vegetables, herbs and legumes are not natural”, so that’s reaching.
BTW, the average ambient atmospheric concentration of benzene is about 0.7 parts per billion. That’s in spite of our chemical industry, tobacco consumption and automobiles—mainly because of rapid atmospheric degradation. The vast majority of us will be in our graves long before we can inhale a tiny fraction of the LD50 of that chemical
I don’t understand your seeming anger over this issue. History is quite plain on the correlation between HFCS and government intervention.
The glycemic value of carbs is how quickly they are available as glucose. The quickness of availability is determined in the gut during digestion. Sucrose is metablozied so quickly that it has essentially the same GI as the free sugar in HFCS (55~60). No one eats pure fructose so it is always going to be mixed with other things. Those things, along with water, will always be there so your fear of pure HCL reacting with fructose to create 5-HMF, in amounts that could "potentially" cause cancer, is irrational. Earlier you said all simple sugars react with HCL to do this. Is this still your position? Since sucrose is a simple sugar, are you indicting it as well?
How can you possibly go through life not eating naturally occurring simple sugars? You can't, and to suggest that you can, or should, is just plain ignorant.
Calling HFCS what it is—an unnatural industrial product—is not the same as saying “fruits, vegetables, herbs and legumes are not natural”, so that’s reaching.
BS. Here's what you said: Very few real (natural, unprocessed) foods have high amounts of simple sugars occurring naturally, so how are they “unavoidable. You can try and tap dance around this all you want, but it is a indefensible statement. Yet here you are...
HFCS is glucose, fructose, and a few higher sugars. Your body treats them the same as they do glucose and fructose from any other (natural included) source. Your fear of HFCS is irrational.
You also said; HFCS imparts well over ten times the normal amount of free simple sugars to anything it’s added to. This is another indefensible statement.
the average ambient atmospheric concentration of benzene is about 0.7 parts per billion. That’s in spite of our chemical industry, tobacco consumption and automobiles—mainly because of rapid atmospheric degradation. The vast majority of us will be in our graves long before we can inhale a tiny fraction of the LD50 of that chemical.
Excellent. You don't fear benzene in our air or water in trace amounts, nor should you. It's unfortunate you don't apply the same thought process to the possibility that HCL reacting with sugar in the gut might create trace amounts of carcinogens like 5-HMF.
Government intervention that caused industry to develop an alternative to sucrose is a far different stance than saying agriculture and food processors working together is the communist manifesto in action. Those are the kinds of remarks someone would make who knows nothing about the industry, or economic in general. Why is it those who know the least about something are always the first to criticize it or make grand pronouncements based on junk science?