Posted on 05/22/2011 11:11:23 AM PDT by DannyTN
You are starting with a false pretext. Disaccharides don't break down into monosaccharides (ie, glucose and fructose) in solution. They are split by chemical means (ie, enzymes).
I can get back crystalline sucrose from sucrose that has been dissolved in water to break down into glucose and fructose.
No you can't. You can seperate mixtures like sugar water though physical means, but you can't seperate compounds by physical means. If you mix sucrose and water, you've created a mixture. They can be seperated by physical means (evaporation). If you combine HFCS with water, you've created another mixture. It can be seperated by physical means. Mixtures can be separated by physical methods. Compounds cannot.
Now, if HFCS behaves the same way as sugar does in solution, it too breaks down to glucose and fructose in solution.
Your assumption that sucrose breaks down in an aqueous solution is incorrect. Enzymes are required to break the glycosidic bonds of sucrose. Disaccharides are digested by enzymes in the small intestines. This is why you can mix sugar with water, and use physical means to seperate the two. You're simply creating a homogeneous solution, not a compound. Mixing sugar with water doesn't break the glycosidic bonds connecting the two monosacchrides glucose and fructose.
then doesn't it imply that sugar and HFCS really don't behave the same way inside our bodies?
The body converts fructose to glucose and uses it for fuel or stores it as fat. It does it with both fructose from sucrose and fructose from HFCS.
assume you're using 50:50 HFCS.
There is no such thing. 50:50 is sucrose, not HFCS.
Exactly what I wanted.
Thanks, so, if sugar needs chemical processing to release the glucose and fructose (enzymatic action) in solution while HFCS doesn’t, and if the body has the ability to produce the enzyme (sucrase) to break down sucrose to glucose and fructose, doesn’t using HFCS bypass a regulatory mechanism in the body (regulated by sucrase production)?
Agreed.
My pleasure.
doesn’t using HFCS bypass a regulatory mechanism in the body (regulated by sucrase production)?
Actually, the absorption of sugars is independent of their dietary sources. They rely on active transport in the small intestines.
And what would one do with sugar in the home that you can't do with HFCS? If, of course, it was available to consumers. Which it isn't.
So why isn't it available to the retail market if it's so wonderful, and cheap, too? I posit the stuff is so horrendous--possibly horrendous smelling and tasting in its undiluted form--that consumers would gag and sales of soft drinks and anything made with it would die.
As to the other stuff you posted, I can believe "studies," (which were funded overtly or covertly by the Corn Refiners Association) or I can believe my lying eyes.
You’re welcome. On other threads, a recurring theme was that both sucrose and HFCS break down into fructose and glucose in solution.
I’m aware of sucrose intolerance, brought about by the body’s incapacity to produce sucrase. That being the case, will there not be differences in metabolic processes handling sugar vs. those handling HFCS? Both are really not the same, if that’s the case.
Thank you!
Simply not true. The metabolism of fructose leads to biological damage.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM
The excessive calories = fat thing is also not that simple. What you eat matters. Different food have different metabolic effects.
It was done at Duke, and the most recent online references (dating to March 2010) to it list it as to appear in The Journal of Hepatology.
The fructose monosaccharide is converted to glucose. One molecule of glucose has the same metabolic process as another molecule of glucose.
Yes it is.
The metabolism of fructose leads to biological damage. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM
I'm not going to sit through a 1.5 hour video trying to figure out what you are unwilling to state outright. State in you own words: How does the metabolism of fructose lead to biological damage?
2. No matter what the results were when comparing sucrose to HFCS, the study does little to back up the claims of anti-HFCS crusaders. Their claim is that the presence of HFCS causes obesity in and of itself, yet this study has rats eating as much normal food as they wish and then as much sucrose or HFCS as they wish. So, the foremost thing this study proves is that if your caloric intake is either a normal intake with soda piled on top or a normal intake made up by a high percentage of soda, you get fat. In other words, junk food still sucks and always has. That's hardly surprising.
3. Not that I expect you to answer for him, but none of this tells us why Hyman has to lie to make his case.
As I've mentioned upthread, I have no dog in the HFCS fight, but I do have a few questions:
1. What evidence do you have that the studies death2tyrants has mentioned have been "funded overtly or covertly by the Corn Refiners Association?" Have you read the studies and examined their methods? Have you even read an abstract or summary?
2. Take a look at the MSDS for a brand of HFCS produced in Canada. Note especially on page 2 under "Physical and Chemical Properties" that the odor listed is "none or faint cereal-like." Which do you think is more likely, that the company is falsifying its MSDS or that there are other reasons that HFCS hasn't been marketed as a competitor to Splenda and other sweeteners?
3. If this stuff is so horrible, why does Hyman hae to lie repeatedly to make a case against it?
Well, considering that HFCS is a liquid, it would be pretty hard to sprinkle it on your cereal or over fruit. Retail consumers are used to using table sugar. Introducing a new product like HFCS for retail application, when it isn't as applicable as table sugar, is not how most companies want to go to market with new products.
I posit the stuff is so horrendous--possibly horrendous smelling and tasting in its undiluted form--that consumers would gag and sales of soft drinks and anything made with it would die.
Clearly, you know nothing about the product you're working so hard here to condemn. People fear things they don't understand and it's flagrantly obvious you have no understanding of HFCS.
HFCS has a mild, pleasant aroma that could hardly be described as objectionable. The beverage industry uses it because it is cheaper than sugar and because it blends easily with the drinks they manufacture. Sucrose is much harder to blend. HFCS is also used in baked goods, cereals etc. Even so, if the government stopped subsidizing our domestic sugar industry to the tune of $2.5 billion annually, HFCS would be replaced with sucrose.
As to the other stuff you posted, I can believe "studies," (which were funded overtly or covertly by the Corn Refiners Association) or I can believe my lying eyes.
Ah, I see you have no grasp of research either. The biochemistry of satiation is highly complex and requires a lot of smarts and a lot of training to understand. Please don't let that stop you though. You are free to sponsor your own studies to find the truth. Be sure and ping me when you uncover the truth that's being suppressed by those evil SOB's at the Corn Refiners Association.
The Princeton study was fraught with problems. This is what happens when psychologists head studies that should be run by biochemists.
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 never tried to explain.
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 of a human drinking a total of 20 cans of 12 ounce sodas per day. If you overwhelm the body with anything, bad things can happen.
The Princeton findings were good for people who care nothing about the truth and only want to create alarm. It also plays into the preconceived notion of those who want to demonize a 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. This is the main reason why we have to deal with junk science. Telling the public everything is ok, is NOT how you attract grant money.
"Natural sources of fructose include fruits, vegetables (including sugar cane), and honey.[17] Fructose is often further concentrated from these sources. The highest dietary sources of fructose, besides pure crystalline fructose, are foods containing table sugar (sucrose), high-fructose corn syrup, agave nectar, honey, molasses, maple syrup, and fruit juices, as these have the highest percentages of fructose (including fructose in sucrose) per serving compared to other common foods and ingredients."
You should post facts NOT false propaganda ...
“Had a “Mexican Coke” the other day and wow was it refreshing! So much better than the stuff normally sold in the USA.”
Did you get Montezuma’s revenge?
“Can you do the same with HFCS to get crystalline sugar.”
Yes, but you will have a bit of fructose left over.
“Nope. Some things are inherently bad. More of them is worse than less of them, but any amount is bad.
The key to avoiding arsenic poison is not to take it in moderation. It’s to avoid eating arsenic. Same for fuctose.”
So you are afraid to eat an apple or honey? scarey.
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.