Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Studies show no meaningful difference between high fructose corn syrup and sucrose
Corn Refiners Association ^ | May 24, 2011 | Unknown

Posted on 05/24/2011 11:11:30 AM PDT by decimon

Obesity and diabetes rates continue to rise despite decline in consumption of sweeteners

WASHINGTON – A comprehensive review of research focusing on the debate between High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) and other sweeteners presented today finds there is no evidence of any significant variation in the way the human body metabolizes HFCS as opposed to standard table sugar, or any difference in impact on risk factors for chronic disease.

James M. Rippe, MD, founder and director of the Rippe Lifestyle Institute and professor of biomedical sciences at the University of Central Florida, presented a summary of recent research entitled -- "High Fructose Corn Syrup, Sucrose and Fructose: What Do We Really Know?" – at the American Society of Hypertension (ASH) Annual Meeting in New York City. Dr. Rippe was invited to present his findings on a panel focusing on nutrition and cardiovascular prevention, an issue that ASH recognizes as important on the subject of hypertension and cardiovascular disease.

Based on Dr. Rippe's review of a series of randomized, prospective studies, there is no evidence of adverse impacts from consumption of normal levels of either sucrose or HFCS on weight, ability to lose weight, or increased risk factors for chronic disease, nor were other differences found between the two sugars. Furthermore, a review of current research in this area shows that an individual is no more likely to experience obesity or chronic diseases by consuming HFCS as opposed to other sweeteners such as table sugar.

"While there has been a lot of media attention lately focused on the claims that HFCS is somehow more likely to cause obesity and chronic disease than other sweeteners, the evidence simply does not support those claims," said Dr. Rippe. "Recent research shows that individuals who consumed normal levels fructose have seen no adverse effects on their weight or triglycerides."

Also somewhat surprising, the United States Department of Agriculture has reported that while average daily caloric consumption has risen steadily over the last several decades, along with the rates of obesity and diabetes according to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the average daily caloric consumption of sweeteners, including HFCS, has actually decreased over the last decade.

In the mid-1970s, the average American diet contained less than 2,200 calories per day. By 2008, that average increased by approximately 500 calories to nearly 2,700 calories per day – a 22 percent jump. By contrast, since 1999 the average of total sugar-added calories consumed per capita per day actually decreased from over 500 calories per day down to just over 450 – a 10 percent decrease. During that same period, there was a dramatic spike in the calories from added fats and a consistently high calorie intake from flour and cereal products.

"In the case of HFCS, while consumption increased steadily over two decades in the United States beginning in the 1970s, it peaked around 1999 and has been declining ever since. Yet, we see the incidence of obesity and diabetes in the U.S. continues to rise or remain steady during that time" said Dr. Rippe. "Meanwhile, we have seen obesity and diabetes epidemics in regions of the world where little or no HFCS is available."

###

For more information on added sugars, please visit www.SweetSurprise.com.

CRA is the national trade association representing the corn refining (wet milling) industry of the United States. CRA and its predecessors have served this important segment of American agribusiness since 1913. Corn refiners manufacture sweeteners, ethanol, starch, bioproducts, corn oil, and feed products from corn components such as starch, oil, protein, and fiber.

Visit us on the Web at www.Corn.org


TOPICS: Food; Health/Medicine; Science
KEYWORDS: bigcorn; corn; cornsugar; cornsyrup; hfcs; highfructose; jamesrippe; propaganda; rippe; sugar
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-88 last
To: Marylander

Fructose is related to glucose (both are essential simple sugars) and fructose is FRUIT sugar the same as you find in fruits and natural fruit juices. I never found anything in my biochemistry courses that indicated that fructose goes directly to fat as someone else here indicated. In the mid 70s it was charcoal broiled meat causes cancer, salt causes HBP, nitrites in bacon, butter, eggs all cause high cholesterol, stress causing ulcers and a host of other things that were BS then and have been proven to be BS today.

As Marylander said:

HFCS is a combination of fructose and glucose,
whereas,
sugar is a combination of fructose and glucose.

Get over the overhyped BS.


51 posted on 05/24/2011 12:13:05 PM PDT by RJS1950 (The democrats are the "enemies foreign and domestic" cited in the federal oath)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: decimon

Except the taste.

Which, in the event I drink a coke (whatever flavor, dr. pepper, pepsi, coke, RC, etc), then I want it to taste good.

HFCS doesn’t.


52 posted on 05/24/2011 12:14:04 PM PDT by Ro_Thunder (I sure hope there is a New Morning in America soon. All this hope and change is leaving me depressed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bloody Sam Roberts

>>>But...but...how can this beee!!?? High fructose corn syrup is eeevil. The TeeVee tells me so.

It ani’t just your teevee... there’s threads right here in Freeprville sayin’ the same thing.


53 posted on 05/24/2011 12:15:16 PM PDT by Keith in Iowa (FR Class of 1998 | TV News is an oxymoron. | MSNBC = Moonbats Spouting Nothing But Crap.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: decimon
First, sucrose is 50% fructose and 50% glucose. Second, the HFCS used in most food is either HFCS 55 (55% fructose, 45% glucose) or HFCS 42 (42% fructose, 58% glucose). That tiny 5% fructose in the HFCS 55 foods as part of the total sugar intake isn't going to make any difference. And if the foods one eats using HFCS is split evenly between the 55 and 42, then one is actually eating less fructose than if he uses straight sucrose.
54 posted on 05/24/2011 12:18:25 PM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mase

I always enjoy your comments on these threads. Thank you for adding facts and reason to the discussion.


55 posted on 05/24/2011 12:22:57 PM PDT by JustaDumbBlonde (Don't wish doom on your enemies. Plan it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Peter from Rutland
We all make judgement calls.

Since your judgment seems to be in question, please note that the mercury found in the study of HFCS was measured in parts per trillion. You get a lot more benzene from the water you drink, measured in parts per billion, than any alleged mercury in products containing HFCS.

Being of sound judgment, which do you think you should be more concerned about?

56 posted on 05/24/2011 12:24:30 PM PDT by Mase (Save me from the people who would save me from myself!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: ExTxMarine

I don’t know, but when I went through Marine Boot Camp in early 1970 as a skinny kid I ate everything they put in front of me including fruit, fruit juices, sugar on buttered bread (pogey bait not allowed) and every fatty item them put in front of me. I only gained 15 pounds but I was fit and muscled when I came out, maintaining an ideal weight limits throughout a military career (not all as a Marine). Yes, exercise and reasonable eating habits will keep you healthy, if you have no other genetic or environmental causes such as smoking or exposure to high levels of various bad substances. I ate like a sumo wrestler most of my adult life while still maintaining good health and proper weight. When I hit my 50s my metabolism changed and I developed a belly roll despite regular exercise. When that happened I drastically trimmed my food intake, fat intake and cut out most sugars but it did nothing to trim my belly roll. My doctor simply says to keep at it and maintain my metabolic indicators (blood sugar, cholesterol etc); the belly roll may never go away.


57 posted on 05/24/2011 12:26:17 PM PDT by RJS1950 (The democrats are the "enemies foreign and domestic" cited in the federal oath)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: JustaDumbBlonde
Thanks. It's a target rich environment. :^)
58 posted on 05/24/2011 12:28:12 PM PDT by Mase (Save me from the people who would save me from myself!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Peter from Rutland

If you think HFCS is evil - you need to look into DHMO. That stuff is more evil than HFCS. http://dhmo.org/


59 posted on 05/24/2011 12:30:24 PM PDT by Keith in Iowa (FR Class of 1998 | TV News is an oxymoron. | MSNBC = Moonbats Spouting Nothing But Crap.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Renfield; All
High fructose corn syrup isn’t metabolized by the body in the way that sucrose is; hfcs goes immediately to fat.

I'm a Ph.D. in Human Nutrition/Nutritional Biology and what you've said above is nonsense for the following reasons:
1. Sucrose is composed of fructose and glucose in a 50/50 ratio.
2. HFCS is composed of fructose and glucose in about the same ratio as sucrose (either 55/45 or 42/58).
3. The fructose and glucose in HFCS and sucrose are chemically identical.
4. The fructose and glucose in HFCS and sucrose are absorbed by the body from the gut in exactly the same way.
5. Glucose is metabolized by the same metabolic pathway in the body regardless of whether it comes from corn syrup, cane sugar, clover, sugar beet, honey, or a glucose IV drip.
6. The same is true for fructose.
7. There is very little de novo lipogenesis in humans.
8. The increase in fat deposits in the context of a hypercaloric diet is due to substrate oxidation being switched away from fats, for which there is relatively unlimited storage, to glucose, for which there is relatively limited storage. Most of the fat on one's hips was most recently fat that crossed one's lips.

60 posted on 05/24/2011 12:38:29 PM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Mase

Many pharmaceuticals have warnings related to organ damage that they can cause. They are supposed to only be prescribed because the benefits outweigh the dangers associated with using them.

Pills prescribed for elderly patients with a combination of diabetes and heart problems are an example of this. Once patients get old enough, the pills are seen as the way to go as it becomes more desireable to avoid surgeries, as long as organ problems don’t shorten life expectency.

The liver does not learn, it just does the best it can - if it can’t manage, that’s called liver disease. How things go depends on how much and which medications are taken and the patient and what else is going on with the patient. Tylenol is an example with well-known issues.

A lot of information which details drug metabolic pathways, risks, etc., is available as put out by the drug companies, and I don’t think they are publishing unmitigated nonsense.

IMHO...

If one needs to take medications, one needs to take them. I’m just not living in a fantasy world where I believe that somehow the FDA has guaranteed that no pharmaceuticals have any side effects. I would think that it’s best for the patient to understand as much as they can so they can do their own common sense healthy living and make as informed decisions as possible.

And there’s nothing so good as some just-picked vegetables grown without chemicals.


61 posted on 05/24/2011 12:42:03 PM PDT by PieterCasparzen (Huguenot)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Buckhead
As if sucrose was a health food.

What they’re really saying is that sucrose and fructose are equally bad for you.


Without glucose, most easily obtained from sucrose and starches in the diet, your brain won't function.
62 posted on 05/24/2011 12:43:12 PM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: RJS1950

That’s my point, 85-90% of all obese/over-weight people are that way due to lack of decent eating habits and obscene food intake.

I like to eat - I grew up on my grand-parent’s farm. We ate heartily! Biscuits, gravy, bacon, ham, eggs, pancakes, fried okra, fresh milk and butter, and orange juice (THAT WAS BREAKFAST)! But, we worked from 5:30AM until the sun went down! So, we were extremely active! I left the farm for my last three years at home (moved to the city), before joining the Corps, and I didn’t change my eating habits, but I definitely did NOT do nearly as much work and physical activity (even with high school sports). I quickly gained about 35 pounds.

About a year ago I realized that my work habits were causing me to have very bad eating habits and very little exercise time. My metabolism is pretty normal, if I am hungry, I eat. I try to exercise about 30-45 minutes a day (usually a short session in the morning and another in the afternoon). I drink LOTS of water. I have lost about 40 pounds in the last year or so. It is a pretty simple thing.

Now, if all you ever eat is sugary, fat filled cake and pies, as long as you work out in proportion to the intake, you can probably maintain your weight, but your body is going to be feeling pretty weak and bad - because you are not getting all the right nutrients and vitamins.

Same thing though, if you eat nothing but wheat-grass and drink water all day and only do “maintenance” work-outs, you will probably never be over-weight, but your body is going to be feeling pretty weak and bad - because you are not getting all the right nutrients and vitamins.

So, proper intake plus proper exercise usually equals normal body weight and healthy living! We each should know our own bodies and what we can eat and can’t eat, what work out works best for us and that which does not work. I don’t think people need to take 20 different pills, starve themselves and give up every single items that contains sugar. None of those things will fix weight issues: normal intake and normal exercise is the BEST way - PERIOD.


63 posted on 05/24/2011 12:50:17 PM PDT by ExTxMarine (PRAYER: It's the only HOPE for real CHANGE in America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: decimon

These are the same kind of people who worked for the tobacco companies who said that smoking wasn’t bad for you. Don’t believe any “study” from a group that is making hundreds of millions of dollars on the product they are supporting.


64 posted on 05/24/2011 12:51:01 PM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (Islam is the religion of Satan and Mohammed was his minion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Buckhead

I just find the advice frequently and ridiculously contradictory.

It is unstable and unuseable. Everyone has a horse in the race.

Moderation in all things; no matter how perfect your diet you will eventually pass away.


65 posted on 05/24/2011 12:51:37 PM PDT by Persevero (Can not wait for 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: decimon

I don’t believe this.
For one thing they taste different.
Second, the enzymes and chemical processes involved are different.


66 posted on 05/24/2011 1:06:34 PM PDT by BuffaloJack (Obama did not learn incompetence; he was born to it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: donhunt

“I’m so damn healthy I’ll never die. My life is so miserable.”

There was a report a short time back that said some of the nations on the top of the list as “the happiest”, according to polls, were also nations on the top of the lists for the number of suicides.

The reporter’s explanation was that while the polls might reflect the majority of the people as happy with their lives, that just made for an even more miserable situation for a minority that could not be successful or happy - as in: why is my life hell when it’s so good for everyone else.

I’m not taking that explanation as gospel, just food for thought.


67 posted on 05/24/2011 1:14:51 PM PDT by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: ExTxMarine

I had a friend who was always eating and drinking “diet”, “sugar free”, “fat free”, etc., etc., etc - with everything he consumed, to any extent possible.

He also was always complaining about his weight.

After years of watching this, one evening, after a nice bar-b-que, I watched him wolf down a quart of “fat free”, “sugar free” ice cream, and then listened to his explanation that it was O.K. ‘cause it was “fat free” and “sugar free”.

Oh, and he always complained that he was always hungry.

I finally told him what I thought. I believed he actually consumed way more calories than I did and most likely an awful lot more calories as carbohydrates than I did. But, since so much of his intake was composed of foods made from artificial this and artificial that, with so little actual fat or actual sugar, that his body was starving for real food, and converting his over-abundance of carbs into fat.

I told him that I would bet he would be less hungry and wind up consuming less calories and less carbs if he gave his body real food, including butter and sugar instead of all the “diet” stuff.

We are no longer friends so I don’t know if he took my advice or not.

I think the old adage “all things in moderation accepted” still holds a lot of truth.


68 posted on 05/24/2011 1:31:52 PM PDT by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: lurk

Other 3000 calories???


69 posted on 05/24/2011 1:34:41 PM PDT by newzjunkey (What happened to America?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Mase
Ok, so fructose is fructose except when it isn't.

The fructose molecule comes in at least two varieties or structures. A left hand and a right hand version which are wound exactly opposite. I'm not an expert but smart enough to know that we've a lot more to learn about how the human digestive process works as well as the affects caused by differences in molecular structures of the foods we consume.

Given the choice between a sweetener occurring naturally or something synthesized by cost conscious folks, I'll stick with natural...

70 posted on 05/24/2011 1:45:20 PM PDT by Errant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Mase

Thanks for the ping.


71 posted on 05/24/2011 1:53:54 PM PDT by death2tyrants
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Mase

I’m not worried about the mercury really, it’s the fact that the stuff makes you a big tub of lard.

I prefer actual sugar, thank you.


72 posted on 05/24/2011 1:56:04 PM PDT by Peter from Rutland
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: aruanan

I know better than to do anything but sit up an listen when you are talking biology/physiology.

Regards,


73 posted on 05/24/2011 2:06:03 PM PDT by Buckhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

.


74 posted on 05/24/2011 2:12:38 PM PDT by loungitude ( The truth hurts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wuli
I had a friend who was always eating and drinking “diet”, “sugar free”, “fat free”, etc., etc., etc - with everything he consumed, to any extent possible.

I am not a college graduate with a nutritional degree in wheat-germ studies or anything like that, but let me tell you what I think is causing a great deal of the weight/medical problems in America!

The number one failure is the "fat free," "diet" and "sugar free" items that people drink/eat in mass quantities (because they are better - "They are diet.") As you noted to your friend, this greatly increases caloric intake which people just do NOT think about.

The second most common failure is lack of water intake! Water IS the fountain of youth! The more we eat, the more water we should drink! Your body uses water to convert all those calories to energy and body mass! It flushes toxins from the body! Everyone needs to drink 8 to 12 glasses of water a day!

The last item (which is strictly my opinion, but makes sense to me) relates back to the first entry: diet/sugar free foods and drinks. I believe that the rise in Type 2 diabetes is related to the giant rise in diet/sugar free food products: Diet Coke is the number 2 soda on the entire soda market; it sells MORE than regular Pepsi! Now, this might just be a coincidence, since Type 2 Diabetes is more prevalent in obese people, but I think it might be more of a cause than most people (especially companies) want to admit (See tobacco use and lung cancer as it relates to companies admitting product failures) - I'm just saying...
75 posted on 05/24/2011 2:21:12 PM PDT by ExTxMarine (PRAYER: It's the only HOPE for real CHANGE in America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Renfield

Yeah, what a coincidence that the CRA whose members make money off of the demand for corn finds no problem with HFCS.

Once I started avoiding HFCS, I lost 30 pounds the first year. And it’s in everything so very hard to avoid - have to make some things from scratch. I didn’t do it for weight loss, I did it because of those terrible sinking spells, joint pain etc. Those are gone now too.

People under 40 or maybe it’s 30 by now, who haven’t abused their bodies with HFCS for long enough, or those who don’t have diabetes in their families won’t know what I’m talking about, but the negative effects of HFCS are very real.


76 posted on 05/24/2011 2:23:09 PM PDT by Let's Roll (Save the world's best healthcare - REPEAL, DEFUND Obamacare!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: IYAS9YAS

I could be wrong because I’ve only seen one of their commercials but I thought I noted that they talked about corn syrup and not HFCS - there is a difference.


77 posted on 05/24/2011 2:25:10 PM PDT by Let's Roll (Save the world's best healthcare - REPEAL, DEFUND Obamacare!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: ExTxMarine

Actually my point was that while exercise and sensible eating habits are good, not all people are fat because of overeating and not all overeaters become fat. Exercise may or may not be a factor in either case. There are plenty of skinny people and people who exercise who put on weight, develop type II diabetes or higher cholesterol despite their lack of body fat or their diet or their exercise regimen. There are plenty of fat people who do not develop any of these problems and who live to a ripe old age despite their extra weight. I have quite a few relatives who spent most of their lives overweight but had none of these problems and lived into their late 80s or late 90s. I have also know very trim and fit military people who despite their diet and regular exercise developed all of these problems and some who died from them. Each person has a different metabolism and physiology that reacts differently to food and exercise. Some fat people got fat by eating too much and not staying in shape, some are fat despite all of the exercise and a good diet. The 85-90% figure is way too high; not everyone puts on weight for the same reasons.


78 posted on 05/24/2011 2:56:40 PM PDT by RJS1950 (The democrats are the "enemies foreign and domestic" cited in the federal oath)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: ExTxMarine

I think the bad part of “diet” drinks and “fat free” foods is that they either contain nothing useful to the body at all or they contain carbs in a ratio of carbs to fat and carbs to sugar that is NOT normal. I think many dieters are constantly hungry or at least having “cravings” because their body is starving for normal food; food containing moderate amounts of regular fats and sugars.

I know well-informed diabetics KNOW that it is total carbs as much as sugar that they need to watch out for.

I also know six type-two diabetics in my life. Four of them were perpetual dieters before the onset of their diabetes.


79 posted on 05/24/2011 4:07:07 PM PDT by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: aruanan; All

Sorry, I should have said “glucose” instead of “sucrose”. Nonetheless, hfcs is conducive to ill health; better watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM


80 posted on 05/24/2011 6:29:04 PM PDT by Renfield (Turning apples into venison since 1999!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: TheWriterTX
drink a lot of water

And pee a lot, nothing more.

81 posted on 05/24/2011 6:32:37 PM PDT by Minn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: My hearts in London - Everett
any organic food that I know of or buy.

I was at the grocery store this evening looking for potatoes. Picked up a two pound bag of scrawny, already growing potatoes that had a price of $5. "What the hell?" I thought, before seeing the word "Organic" on the label. I set the potatoes for morons down, and picked up the real ones that were $5 for 5 pounds and perfectly fresh.

People that pay extra for inferior food because somebody slapped an "organic" label on are gullible beyond description.

82 posted on 05/24/2011 6:38:37 PM PDT by Minn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Wuli
We are no longer friends

Imagine that.

83 posted on 05/24/2011 6:42:10 PM PDT by Minn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Neoliberalnot

>It isn’t complicated but that ugly aspect of self-discipline rears its ugly head and when ignored demands its retribution.<

You are only partially correct. Sugar consumption, in some people, triggers an excess of insulin that causes the body to store the carbohydrates as fat instead of sending it to the muscles to be used for activity. This surge of too much insulin creates a physiological drive to eat. If the person cuts out sugars, white flour and other starches from the diet and limits his or her carbohydrate intake a day to under 60 grams or less, it’s possible not to overeat.

It’s not a matter of “self-discipline”, it’s a physiological process caused by a reaction to too much carbohydrate in the diet.


84 posted on 05/24/2011 9:22:07 PM PDT by Darnright (There can never be a complete confidence in a power which is excessive. - Tacitus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: RJS1950

If a belief has been reached by emotion rather than reason, it is very difficult to dislodge it using only facts and logic.


85 posted on 05/25/2011 4:35:24 AM PDT by Marylander (Offendiphobia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Darnright

I know a bit about carbohydrate (CHO) metabolism. Years of excess CHO intake, whether it be from glucose, fructose, or grain, actually results in non-responsive insulin receptors. People who discipline themselves (this is self-discipline), as you suggested, by avoiding excess CHO consumption, do not have problems with glucose regulation. Most people simply consume way too many CHOs in the form of grain, sugar, fructose or whatever. If it comes in a box or a bag, don’t eat it.


86 posted on 05/25/2011 7:31:11 AM PDT by Neoliberalnot ((Read "The Grey Book" for an alternative to corruption in DC))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Minn

It seems that you are among those few old-timers here who believe longevity conveys the right to be rude. My comment was not addressed to you, so please keep your rude comments to yourself. You have every right to eat the way you choose without being attacked and demeaned for it. I also have that right.


87 posted on 05/25/2011 8:18:28 AM PDT by My hearts in London - Everett (You will try to nudge commies toward the truth, while they try to nudge you toward the cattle cars.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Neoliberalnot

> People who discipline themselves (this is self-discipline), as you suggested, by avoiding excess CHO consumption, do not have problems with glucose regulation. Most people simply consume way too many CHOs in the form of grain, sugar, fructose or whatever. If it comes in a box or a bag, don’t eat it.<

You’re preaching to the choir.

So many on here bash overweight people for “lack of self control”, when they are following the low fat, high carb diets recommended by “experts” like Dr Oz, for example.


88 posted on 05/25/2011 10:12:58 AM PDT by Darnright (There can never be a complete confidence in a power which is excessive. - Tacitus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-88 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson