Posted on 04/03/2012 8:40:17 PM PDT by chessplayer
But your body handles hydrolyzed sucrose (sugar) and HFCS in the same manner. Your body doesn't know the source of the fructose and glucose nor does it care.
HFCS has the same sweet taste as sucrose from cane sugar, but its production process is chemical-laden and much more complicated.
Chemical laden? LOL!
The end result is glucose and fructose. Unless you think the glucose and fructose in sucrose is somehow different than the glucose and fructose in HFCS?
Sucrose (from cane sugar) is a 50-50 mix of glucose and fructose bound together tightly as a disaccharide. It must be broken apart in your digestive tract. HFCS, at minimum, is a 45-55 mix of glucose and fructose
You forgot the formula of HFCS, used mostly in processed food and baking, that is 42% fructose and 55% glucose. Is this version of HFCS better for our health than regular old table sugar that is a 50-50 split?
Because both are absorbed into your bloodstream more rapidly than when they need to be unbound in your digestive track.
How much more rapidly? I ask because the glycemic index for sucrose and HFCS fall into the same range (55~60). It is also a fact that the satiety profiles of sucrose and HFCS are the same. I'd be happy to link you to the studies that make this clear.
The fructose goes right to your liver where it is converted into triglycerides.
And for decades our institutions of higher learning have taught that the liver converts fructose to glucose.....the things one can learn on FR.
The glucose, meanwhile, spikes blood sugar and creates a rapid insulin response. Constant insulin spikes can lead to insulin resistance which is the basis of Type II Diabetes.
Really? Then I suppose you can offer up a study that shows us how the consumption of caffeine also leads to Type II diabetes. Since caffeine consumption stimulates the release of insulin, it shouldn't be a problem for you to show us the studies that implicate caffeine consumption in causing insulin resistance and Type II diabetes. Or, you might just be wrong.
During the insulin response the hormone Grehlin is suppressed. This is the hormone that signals the brain that you are full. No satiety signal, no need to stop eating.
Is that right? How is it then, that the satiety profiles of sucrose and HFCS are the nearly identical?
Free fructose from HFCS (and not fructose found in fruit) steals ATP from your intestinal lining causing body-wide inflammation.
This is quality nonsense....and incredibly wrong.
HFCS spikes your blood sugar (diabetes), elevates your triglycerides (heart disease, body fat), causes inflammation (heart attack and stroke), and causes you to eat more (obesity). Regular sugar does all of this except cause body-wide inflammation, and it just doesn’t do it quite as rapidly.
No wonder you think sugar/HFCS is just like cocaine and needs to be regulated. You are extremely confused about biochemistry, human nutrition and human physiology. According to your sources, we should be a nation of disease ridden invalids. Instead, we're living longer and healthier lives than at any other time in our history. You need new sources...or at least one that understands that glucose and fructose from hydrolyzed sugar is managed no differently by your body than glucose and fructose from HFCS.
As for your Princeton study.......that's the kind of nonsense you end up with when a Professor of Psychology runs an experiment that should have been left to the biochemistry department.
The Princeton study is rife with problems. 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 could never explain away.
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 to a human drinking a total of 20 cans of 12 ounce sodas per day. How many people do you know that drink 20 cans of soda per day? If you overwhelm the body with anything, bad things can happen. People die from drinking too much water, after all.
The Princeton findings were attractive to those who care little for the truth and only want to create alarm. It also plays well to the agenda of those who demonize a particular 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. That's exactly what's going on here. Junk science, fear creation, and the subsequent money grabbing that can make a professor's life so much more comfortable in the world of academia. There are rats both inside and outside of the cages.
As it is stated in the link (#118), the Princeton research was a joint effort by Princeton Department of Psychology & the Princeton Neuroscience Institute - the results were published in the journal Pharmacology, Biochemistry and Behavior. Bart Hoebel is a psychology professor, who specializes in the neuroscience of appetite, weight and sugar addiction.
However, you speak with distinct personal authority on these subjects, so would be interested to know your profession, specialties, credentials, and any related experiments and/or research you've conducted, perhaps the ones that have been published in bona fide medical journals?
Did you offer your expertise & 'formal', or even 'informal' critique of the Princeton research to the people who conducted the experiments, or those who published the results? Did you discuss it? What was the outcome?
Since you also offered, why don't you provide links to some of those studies that support your claims & points that you pose as questions?
No wonder you think sugar/HFCS is just like cocaine and needs to be regulated.
Really?! Can you quote where I said that?
Personally, I'd welcome those who have proven expertise in certain areas, want to impart knowledge or be critical of others work or findings in a professional manner. After all, there is still much to be discovered, shared & learned. But the tone in your post is derogatory & your response comes across as not only obviously dismissive, but also politically motivated.
Interesting that, for the most part in this thread, you've consistently accused others, whose position is different to yours, of having an agenda or being nuts.
According to your sources, we should be a nation of disease ridden invalids.
Not "disease ridden invalids", but the focus is on "obesity", and it wasn't "my" sources, but your own in the US. Had you read the link in #118, you would've noticed this:
In the 40 years since the introduction of high-fructose corn syrup as a cost-effective sweetener in the American diet, rates of obesity in the U.S. have skyrocketed, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In 1970, around 15 percent of the U.S. population met the definition for obesity; today, roughly one-third of the American adults are considered obese, the CDC reported. High-fructose corn syrup is found in a wide range of foods and beverages, including fruit juice, soda, cereal, bread, yogurt, ketchup and mayonnaise. On average, Americans consume 60 pounds of the sweetener per person every year.
There are many articles you can find on the web, written by various American health professionals, who make similar claims based on percentages.
I travel regularly to the US since my husband is American and we've family in different parts of the US. So, even by simply looking around, we see many more "obese" people in the US than we see in Australia. Whether it is solely due to HFCS intake or not, I don't know, but, comparatively speaking, it is very obvious.
Normally, when quoting someone else, one would place quotation marks around the quotes, or post the words in italics. If these weren't your words then I think it is safe to say that you agree with the summary.
As it is stated in the link (#118), the Princeton research was a joint effort by Princeton Department of Psychology & the Princeton Neuroscience Institute - the results were published in the journal Pharmacology, Biochemistry and Behavior.
Thanks.
Bart Hoebel is a psychology professor, who specializes in the neuroscience of appetite, weight and sugar addiction.
Too bad ol Bart can't explain why the rats fed HFCS for 24 hours didn't gain more weight like the ones fed HFCS for 12 hours. You'd think that being fed HFCS for a full 12 hours more, that they'd gain more weight than the rats fed HFCS for 12 hours. They didn't. So much for his conclusion.
I also see where ol Bart never bothered to explain why he was feeding rats the human equivalent of drinking a total of 20 cans of 12 ounce sodas per day. Forcing lab animals to consume quantities of an ingredient that has no relationship whatsoever to real world human consumption is a problem, don't you think? If you overwhelm the body with anything, bad stuff will happen. Research scientists are guilty of doing this far too often....but they get the desired result and the grant money continues to flow. Absurdity and wretchedness it is.
....research you've conducted, perhaps the ones that have been published in bona fide medical journals?
I need to be published in "bona fide" (LOL) medical journals to be able to point out the fallacies in Bart's research and the obvious and inherent problems with rat studies translating to humans? Only published scientists have enough grasp of food science to know that glucose and fructose from sucrose is no different than glucose and fructose from HFCS? Lustig is an idiot for claiming that ethanol is a carbohydrate and that fructose is metabolized in a similar manner. Anyone who buys what he's selling, when he can't even get this right, is also an idiot. Good grief.
Since you also offered, why don't you provide links to some of those studies that support your claims & points that you pose as questions?
You'd think someone interested in learning the truth about HFCS would be able to search for this information on their own. But that's the thing about dealing with a fixed mentality. You aren't interested in anything that takes issue with your fixed view on the subject. Someone with impressive credentials, and who sounded highly technical, said things you agree with so it must be true.
Even though it won't do any good, here are a couple of references you should probably consider. They certainly don't support Lustig, or any of the other posters who blindly agree with him, but here they are.
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. The iso-energetic (214 kcal) beverages were cola sweetened with either sucrose, HFCS 55 (55% fructose, 45% glucose); HFCS 42 (42% fructose; 58% glucose), or aspartame, and 1% milk. A no beverage control was also employed. Breakfast was consumed at 8:00 am and the beverages were consumed at 10:10 am. Subjective ratings of hunger, fullness, desire to eat, thirst, and nausea were collected at 20 min intervals until lunch was served 140 min later. Caloric beverages suppressed hunger ratings and increased satiety ratings relative to the no beverage control. However, there were no significant differences in satiety profiles among the sucrose- and HFCS-sweetened beverages, diet cola, and 1% milk.,
Kathleen J Melanson and others at Rhode Island University reviewed the effects of HFCS and sucrose on circulating levels of glucose, leptin, insulin and ghrelin in a study group of lean women. All four tested substances have been hypothesized to play a role in metabolism and obesity. 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,"
Sugars and satiety: does the type of sweetener make a difference?
Really?! Can you quote where I said that?
Yeah, really. Here's what you said in a previous post:
Sounds pretty grim. Sugar/HFCS is clearly deleterious to our health. Just look at all the afflictions these evil sweeteners are inflicting mankind! Heart attacks and strokes, obesity and diabetes, body wide inflammation.....someone should be regulating something so dangerous, don't you think?
Or, you could just be buying into what you want to believe, either because you want to believe it's true, or because you don't understand much about human nutrition. Either way, it's unfortunate.
I'm dismissive of people who come to the forum and offer their opinions as facts when they don't even understand the information they've accepted as articles of faith. Making broad pronouncements about anything, when you don't even have a rudimentary understanding of the subject, can sometimes be aggravating for those of us who actually took the time to learn it. Junk science is alive and well today because people willingly accept crap as truth as long as the charlatan appears to know what he's talking about. Allowing the alarmists to dictate reality is why we have a power hungry nanny state that is eager to tell us what we can and cannot do. Michelle Obama is counting on folks like you. Grant desperate junk scientists are counting on you. They have an agenda and it kills me to see that they have so many useful folks willing to assist them.
I think Michelle Obama, CSPI, the food Nazis and the nanny statists are nuts. I also think anyone who stands with them is nuts. But then again, I'm a conservative.
It doesn't require much in the way of critical thinking skills to realize that anyone trying to blame a food ingredient for the obesity epidemic is grasping at straws either because they're stupid or because they have an agenda.
Now, if you want to talk about the potential dangers of reactive carbonyls found in HFCS, then I'm all ears because it is a legitimate concern. But that's not the kind of conversation I expect from people who think fructose is a poison that can only be stopped by fiber, or that fructose destroys ATP in the gut....or whatever the hell that nonsense was. That's all crazy talk and it should be pointed out by those of us who support legitimate science. The HFCS issue gets discussed often on the forum and it is always a wonder to hear what the alarmists have come up with to be afraid of next....or what the food Nazis are blaming obesity and diabetes on now, so they can turn us in to good little collectivists. No thanks.
Just my observation that it seems you don’t fully read what is written, choose/quote bits even from the same sentence or paragraph that you want to hone in on out of (overall) context, and also make huge assumptions. Don’t have the time to go through every part of your posts, but below are 2 examples.
When it is stated upfront, and before the summary: “Firstly, to make it clear, it isn’t my personal opinion, but what is claimed by various professionals (experts, researchers, etc..) in Australia” - it means just that. It should be sufficient to understand what I mean.
Equally, even if the following: — “In summary, HFCS spikes your blood sugar (diabetes), elevates your triglycerides (heart disease, body fat), causes inflammation (heart attack and stroke), and causes you to eat more (obesity). Regular sugar does all of this except cause body-wide inflammation, and it just doesn’t do it quite as rapidly.” — was my opinion, it is too weird for you to conclude that I meant or think “sugar/HFCS is just like cocaine and needs to be regulated.”! That’s quite an assumption on your part.
If you want to know my opinion, then ask! Alternatively, you could’ve read my posts in this thread, including the ones to you, where I have said that exercise, lifestyle, a balanced diet, moderation, and general health of an individual are important factors. In fact I’ve used the word “moderation” several times in this thread.
My personal views: I am not in favour of TOO MUCH Sugar or TOO MUCH HFCS intake. Nor am I in favour of eating TOO MUCH fat. Emphasis on TOO MUCH. I am COMPLETELY against Cocaine. There lies the difference in what I think about Cocaine versus Sugar or even HFCS.
Furthermore, I fully realise that HFCS, Sugar & Fat are not necessarily the cause of obesity, all or most ailments, but, in excess, can be strong contributors.
As for Mrs Obama, am not a fan, and have had an overdose of hearing about her and her adventures regarding health and other stuff, and I don’t even live in the US.
I am also well aware of the politics of it all, particularly the US gov’t sugar tariffs and quotas starting in 1970s, hence cheaper alternative HFCS, and that the price of corn is kept low through US gov’t subsidies paid to growers, in turn, making it attractive for the food & beverage industry as well as the Corn Refiners Association to push HFCS instead of sugar. So, I don’t think Mrs Obama will attempt to ban HFCS, no worries there for those concerned about her activities. It is also my understanding that the mentioned Association and Industry fund a fair bit of research on HFCS ... have a very strong PR presence in the US, have professional associations w/ some physicians, health professionals, researchers, and “Junk Scientists”, etc.. and lobby hard. Not drawing any conclusions, simply indicating my understanding of related economics & politics.
Thanks for the link. I am familiar with that one, as well as more recent research done in the area. Here is one for you:
“Two Common Sweeteners Have Different Effects On the Body, Study Suggests” (published January 23, 2012)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/01/120123175707.htm
Have a good night.
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.