Skip to comments.Sugar
Posted on 01/11/2007 9:09:41 PM PST by PizzaDriver
Today Bill OReilly blamed "Sugar" for our obseity. HE, like most Americans, has confused High Fruitose Corn Syrup with Sugar.
In the Days when Soft Drinks and Fast Food actually used Sugar, 12 ounces was a BIG Pepsi. When Donut Batter included real Sugar, a box of a Dozen was expected to sevre 6 or more.
We got Full, not FAT.
Then Cuba fell to Castro. Industry discovered "Corn sweeteners".
Today, Government and the Media call "High Fruitose Corn Syrup" SUGAR. Then they blame "SUGAR" for our Obeisity.
Sugar's not responsible for our obesity.
I understand corn syrup makes us much hungrier sooner, too. True?
We're all Fruct!
There is about sixteen calories in a measured teaspoon of sugar comprised virtually of pure carbohydrates.
We're all Fruct!
Here it is 12.13AM and you have ALREADY won the Freeper Line of the Day Award.
No on will beat that one today.
Sitting on "our" A*&es complaining how hard it is to lose weight and stuffing "our" mouths is what causes obesity! And, stuffing them with proportionately MORE sugar could be part of the problem, too....which is why there is so much Type 2 diabetes these days....even among the younger set.
You should try the Krispy Kreme diet! You'll shed pounds faster than Teddy Kennedy's obligatory 3 martini-lunch!
I agree that coke made with sugar is much better than one made with high fructose corn syrup. Other than that there is no real difference. People get fat today because they consume more calories, mostly from carbohydrates, than they burn. Both you and O'Reilly are confused on this one.
A basic understanding of chemistry (beyond what most people have, or really should have) shows that this whole HFCS thing is a total hoax. It behaves in your body exactly the way sugar does.
It was a great line.
Fructose has many negatives along with the one benefit of having a lower glycemic index (no blood sugar spikes for diabetics). Fructose does not stimulate any leptin or insulin so there is no satiety or food satisfaction (one will therefore keep on eating it). Fructose does not metabolize like sugar which can be "burned" in your muscles in about thiry minutes. Fructose must go directly to the liver where it is rendered into fat. Fructose also chelates with iron in the gut and facilitates extra absorption of iron (which is associated with so many horrible afflictions that you really do not want to hear about them all....cancer, heart attacks, glaucoma, diabetes etc. Sugar is bad enough but fructose evolved for the purpose of fattening up little furry critters to survive the winter and disperse fruit seeds the next summer. The average american consumes fifty five pounds of fructose per year and that makes it lethal in that amount.
But wait, I thought no one will be able to afford to eat if corn is used to make ethanol instead of fructose syrup!
.....all true however HFCS actually has only 40-45% fructose whereas sugar has 50%......glucose of course making up the other percentages of each....and yes the glucose can be burned in the muscles in the form of glycogen but for most people who don't exercise, the glycogen levels are full and thus no matter which saccaride it is....it will be turned into fat none the less
is the link to the "Satan of Sugar"
I surely do like that Creme Brule, though. Does that make me evil?
You are wrong to say that fructose does not stimulate insulin. Fructose is metabolized by a different pathway than glucose but the liver converts fructose into glucose. Once that glucose enters the blood it will stimulate insulin. Satiation is mediated in the blood so once that fructose is converted to glucose, satiation will occur. The satiation profiles of sugar and high fructose corn syrup are almost identical.
The liver does not render fructose into fat. It converts it to glucose. Any glucose that is needed for immediate energy is taken. The rest is converted into glycogen and stored in the muscles and liver. When the glycogen reserves are full the body will convert the excess into depot fat. Both glucose and fructose enter the Krebs cycle at the same level as 3x2 carbon fragments.
As for fructose and iron chleation.....good grief!.....where to begin. You must have come across one of the many internet nutritional charlatans to really believe all that nonsense. Sounds to me like someone fed lab rats straight fructose in amounts that have no relationship to real world human consumption and then marveled at the rats inability to deal with the overdose and the resulting maladies.
If your unfounded (and goofy) fears were true we'd be a nation of sick people instead of living longer and healthier lives than we ever have. A good book on basic nutrition would help you avoid this kind of nonsense in the future. There are a lot of people calling themselves doctor on the internet who never passed basic chemistry and nutrition. Beware of what they tell you and especially the books they're trying to sell.
Fructose is a monosaccharide (one simple sugar)and sucrose is a disaccharide(two). Their gylcemic indices are different. Fructose is very low compared to sucrose.
I'm betting on the research that implicates fructose with obesity and other problems with blood lipids.
A carb evolved? That's funny!
I agree that sugar is more filling- I can't finish a full can/bottle of pop made with sugar. I cut out corn syrup when I realized that I was allergic to corn. I've lost weight and feel healthier.
Corn and soy are used to fatten livestock. I don't need fattening.
Symbiosis and co-evolution.
Unless you're one of those creationists?
I understand Dr. Pepper in the area of Dallas, Tx is much different (better) than Dr. Pepper that gets distributed nationwide because it is made with real sugar.
Not Dallas. Dublin, Texas.
Would we not be better off with the smaller burgers and drinks of the 50's and 60's? Better tasting, less of it? I'm a 70's child, but I don't remember in documentaries and news from that earlier era seeing a large number of obese people. One of my elders would have to confirm that.
Just one article found on dogpile.com about fructose/high fructose.
By Nancy Appleton, Ph.D.
The consumption of fructose (corn syrup) has risen considerably in the general population within recent years. In 1980 the average person ate 39 pounds of fructose and 84 pounds of sucrose. In 1994 the average person ate 66 pounds of sucrose and 83 pounds of fructose. This 149 pounds is approximately 19% of the average person's diet.
This increase is due to several factors. There was a decreased use of cane and beet sugar (sucrose) in processed foods and a wide spread use of corn syrup due to economics. Corn is much cheaper and twice as sweet as table sugar. It is absorbed only 40% as quickly as glucose and causes only a modest rise in blood sugar.
A few years ago the medical community revealed that there was good news for diabetics. Many people had previously known that table sugar (sucrose) was not a healthy food for diabetics because it raised their blood sugar levels above normal.
Since diabetics have a hard time maintaining healthy blood sugar levels, doctors counseled diabetics not to eat sugar. The new revelation was that diabetics could eat fructose because fructose did not raise their blood sugar level extremely high. So far so good, but there is more.
Many doctors were recommending fructose instead of glucose. Today fructose is not only being used by some diabetics but it is used for a variety of foods, drinks and confectionery around the world. It is used for candies for diabetics, desserts for weight watchers, drinks for the sportsman and jelly for the health conscious.
The medical community recommended it because of a low increase in glucose in the blood. The scientists did not look at other factors in the body when a person eats sugar. Let's look at some of these factors now.
1. Fructose has no enzymes, vitamins, and minerals and robs the body of its micronutrient treasures in order to assimilate itself for physiological use.
Fructose browns food more readily (Maillard reaction) than with glucose. This may seem like a good idea, but it is not.
The Maillard reaction, a browning reaction, happens with any sugar. With fructose it happens seven times faster with than glucose, results in a decrease in protein quality and a toxicity of protein in the body.
This is due to the loss of amino acid residues and decreased protein digestibility. Maillard products can inhibit the uptake and metabolism of free amino acids and other nutrients such as zinc and some advanced Maillard products have mutagenic and/or carcinogenic properties. The Maillard reactions between proteins and fructose, glucose, and other sugars may play a role in aging and in some clinical complications of diabetes.
2. Research showed that in subjects that had healthy glucose tolerance and those that had unhealthy glucose tolerance, fructose caused a general increase in both the total serum cholesterol and in the low density lipoproteins (LDL) in most of the subjects. This puts a person at risk for heart disease.
3. Another study showed that the very low density lipoproteins (VLDL) increased without an apparent change in high density lipoproteins (HDL). The VLDL and the LDL should be as low as possible and the HDL should be as high as possible.
4. There is a significant increase in the concentration of uric acid that is dependent on the amount of fructose digested. After glucose no significant change occurs. An increase in uric acid can be an indicator of heart disease.
5. Fructose ingestion in humans results in increases in blood lactic acid, especially in patients with preexisting acidotic conditions such as diabetes, postoperative stress, or uremia. The significance to human health is that extreme elevations cause metabolic acidosis and can result in death.
6. Fructose is absorbed primarily in the jejunum and metabolized in the liver. Fructose is converted to fatty acids by the liver at a greater rate than is glucose. When consumed in excess of dietary glucose, the liver cannot convert all of the excess of fructose in the system and it may be malabsorbed. What escapes conversion and being absorbed into the cells may be thrown out in the urine. Diarrhea can be a consequence.
7. Fructose interacts with oral contraceptives and elevates insulin levels in women on "the pill."
8. Fructose reduced the affinity of insulin for its receptor. This is the first step for glucose to enter a cell and be metabolized. As a result, the body needs to pump out more insulin, to handle the same amount of glucose.
9. Fructose consistently produced higher kidney calcium concentrations than did glucose in a study with rats. Fructose generally induced greater urinary concentrations of phosphorus and magnesium and lowered urinary pH compared with glucose.
The balance of minerals in the body is very important for the function of vitamins, enzymes and other body function. When the minerals are out of the right relationship, the body chemistry suffers. The presence of diarrhea might be the cause of decreased absorption of minerals.
10. Fructose-fed subjects lose minerals. They had higher fecal excretions of iron and magnesium than did subjects fed sucrose. Apparent iron, magnesium, calcium, and zinc balances tended to be more negative during the fructose feeding period as compared to balances during the sucrose feeding period.
11. A study of 25 patients with functional bowel disease showed that pronounced gastrointestinal distress may be provoked by malabsorption of small amounts of fructose.
12. Many times fructose and sorbitol are substituted for glucose in parenteral nutrition (intervenious feeding, IV). This can have severe consequences with people with hereditary fructose intolerance, a congenital disorder affecting one in 21,000. A European doctor declared: "Fructose and sorbitol containing infusion fluids have no further place in our hospital pharmacies."
13. There is significant evidence that high sucrose diets may alter intracellular metabolism, which in turn facilitates accelerated aging through oxidative damage. Scientists found that the rats given fructose had more undesirable cross?linking changes in the collagen of their skin than in the other groups.
These changes are also thought to be markers for aging. The scientists say that it is the fructose molecule in the sucrose, not the glucose, which plays the larger problem.
14. Fructose is not metabolized the same as other sugars. Instead of being converted to glucose which the body uses, it is removed by the liver.
15. Because it is metabolized by the liver, fructose does not cause the pancreas to release insulin the way it normally does. Fructose converts to fat more than any other sugar. This may be one of the reasons Americans continue to get fatter.
Fructose raises serum triglycerides significantly. As a left-handed sugar, fructose digestion is very low. For complete internal conversion of fructose into glucose and acetates, it must rob ATP energy stores from the liver.
16. Fructose inhibits copper metabolism. A deficiency in copper leads to bone fragility, anemia, defects of the connective tissue, arteries, and bone, infertility, heart arrhythmias, high cholesterol levels, heart attacks, and an inability to control blood sugar levels.
It seems that the magnitude of the deleterious effects varies depending on such factors as age, sex, baseline glucose, insulin, and triglyceride concentrations, the presence of insulin resistance, and the amount of dietary fructose consumed.
Some people are more sensitive to fructose. They include hypertensive, hyperinsulinemic, hypertriglyceridemic, non?insulin dependent diabetic people, people with functional bowel disease and postmenopausal women.
There is a continuing increase in sugar consumption in the United States. We now eat 153 pounds of sugar per person per year.
This increase is mostly in the form of fructose. From the research presented, it seems that this increase is going to have a negative influence on our health.
Nancy Appleton, Ph.D. is a clinical nutritionist, researcher, lecturer, and author of Lick the Sugar, Healthy Bones, Heal Yourself With Natural Foods and the Curse Of Louis Pasteur and her new book Lick the Sugar Habit Sugar Counter.
Her website is www.NancyAppleton.com
1. Beatrice Trum Hunter, "Confusing Consumers About Sugar Intake," CONSUMERS' RESEARCH 78, no 1 (January 1995): 14-17.
2. Judith Hallfrisch, "Metabolic Effects of Dietary Fructose," FASEB JOURNAL 4 (June 1990): 2652-2660.
3. H. F. Bunn and P. J. Higgins, "Reaction of Nonosaccharides with Proteins; Possible Evolutionary Significance." SCIENCE 213 (1981):2222?2244.
4. William L Dills Jr., "Protein Fructosylation: Fructose and the Maillard Reaction," AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NUTRITION 58 (suppl) (1993): 779S-787S.
5. J. Hallfrisch et al., "The Effects of Fructose on Blood Lipid Levels," AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NUTRITION 37, no, 3 (1983): 740-748
6. Claire B. Hollenbeck, "Dietary Fructose Effects on Lipoprotein Metabolism and Risk for Coronary Artery Disease," AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NUTRITION 58 (suppl), (1993): 800S-807S.
7. Hallfrisch, 1990.
8. J. Macdonald, Anne Keyser, and Deborah Pacy, "Some Effects, in Man, of Varying the Load of Glucose, Sucrose, Fructose, or Sorbitol on Various Metabolites in Blood," AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NUTRITION 31 (August 1978)): 1305-1311.
9. D. Zakim and R. H. Herman, AFructose Metabolism II,@ AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NUTRITION 21: 315-319, 1968
10. A. E. Bender and K. B. Damji, "Some Effects of Dietary Sucrose," WORLD REVIEW OF NUTRITION AND DIETETICS 15 (1972): 104-155.
13. A. E. Bergstra, A. G. Lemmens, and A. C. Beynens, "Dietary Fructose vs. Glucose Stimulates Nephrocalcinogenesis in Female Rats," JOURNAL OF NUTRITION 123, no. 7 (July 1993): 1320-1327.
14. R. Ivaturi and C. Kies, "Mineral Balances in Humans as Affected by Fructose, High Fructose Corn Syrup and Sucrose," PLANT FOODS FOR HUMAN NUTRITION 42, no. 2 (1992): 143-151.
15. J. J. Rumessen and E. Gudmand-Hoyer, "Functional Bowel Disease: Malabsorption and Abdominal Distress After Ingestion of Fructose, Sorbitol, and Fructose-Sorbitol Mixtures," GASTROENTEROLOGY 95, no. 3 (September 1988): 694-700.
16. Roger B. Mc Donald, "Influence of Dietary Sucrose on Biological Aging," AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NUTRITION 62 (suppl), (1995): 284s-293s.
17. www.NutritionNewsFocus.com, May 25, 2000.
18. H. Hallfrisch, et al., AThe Effects of Fructose on Blood Lipid Levels,@ AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NUTRITION, 37: 5, 1983, 740-748.
19. Klevay, Leslie, acting director of the U.S. Agriculture Department=s Human Nutrition Research Center, Grand Forks, N.D.
The discussion is about HFCS, which is 42-55% fructose, the remainder is glucose. HFCS-55 is 55% fructose and has a sweetness equivalent to sucrose. That's why it's used in pop. Sucrose is 50/50 fructose/glucose. As Maze said, fructose is converted to glucose in the liver. There can be no differences between corn HFCS and sucrose.
The glycemic index of both is the same because sucrose already provides ~60. The base is 100, provided by glucose. That means the the sucrose is already completely hydrolyzed, some fructose has already been converted to glucose and the sucrose is effectively in the state of HFCS well within the 2-3 hour time of the glycemic index measurement.
bump to #31
Much different than "fructose evolved".
Unless you're one of those creationists?
Once again, do you understand that sucrose is made up of 50% glucose and 50% fructose? High fructose corn syrup is commercialized in two formulas. One, used mostly in soft drinks, is comprised of approximately 55% fructose and 45% glucose. The other, used mostly in baked goods and cereals, is made up of approximately 42% fructose and 58% glucose. Glucose and fructose are both monosaccharides.
High fructose corn syrup is also a monosaccharide while sucrose is a disaccharide. Your gut utilizes the enzyme sucrase to easily and quickly break down sucrose into the monosaccharides, glucose and fructose. At that point, the body metabolizes them the same as it would glucose and fructose from high fructose corn syrup.
Their gylcemic indices are different.
They both fall in the 55-60 range. That makes them essentially identical.
Fructose is very low compared to sucrose.
Considering that sucrose is 50% fructose and 50% glucose, your statement is doesn't make any sense.
I'm betting on the research that implicates fructose with obesity and other problems with blood lipids.
Then you probably also chose Ohio State in the Fiesta Bowl. You shouldn't bet on things you don't understand.
Actually, I think it may have as much to do with the pricing structure as anything.
Thanks for the tip, I will look for Mexican Coca Cola.
Funny story relayed by a buddy, he vacationed in Bermuda, coming back the Customs officer squinted at him and said quizzically, you are bringing back.....Coke????? His monotone reply, "It's a long story."
The long story, what is being discussed here, HFCS.
That's absurd. High fructose corn syrup and sugar are made up of the same two monosaccharides in almost identical proportions. The body metabolizes them in the same way. There is little difference in the satiety profiles of sucrose and high fructose corn syrup.
From Martine Perrigue and colleagues at the University of Washington:
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,"
Yes, but a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down.
In the most delightful way, I might add.
you are my candy girl,
and you got me wanting you.
That's Pizza Driver's point. Which is why you feel "fuller" on less w/real sugar.
Talk about a premium: I buy two cases of soda for $10.00 when they're on sale, so I'll be paying double, before shipping. Should be worth it, though.
I have seen studies that have seen differences in the metabolic transmitters to the brain satiety region with high fructose corn syrup. I don't have time to dig them up again, but I will later.
Hopefully those studies will explain how glucose and fructose from high fructose corn syrup differ from glucose and fructose from hydrolyzed sucrose. If the satiety profiles are different then the formulas and structures of glucose and fructose from one would have to be different than the other. They're not.
Sucrose is hydrolyzed very quickly in the gut and shouldn't vary much from hfcs. If anything, high fructose corn syrup, a monsaccharide, should get glucose into your blood sooner and, therefore, create a feeling of fullness faster than sucrose. This is the opposite of what you're claiming.
How much did cane sugar consumption drop? How does fructose+glucose consumption compare between those years?
I predict that the use of HFCS as a fuel source in the production of methanol will drive the price upward as it competes for its use in the food industry.
You sure about that?
None of those items, if made at home, would require sugar. So how come it's put in the processed versions? The only thing I can think of is that the sweet taste camouflages what would otherwise be a bland recipe.
This is my non-scientific observation, and as far as all of the technical stuff, I will leave it to people who know what they are talking about. I don't.
I only wish I'd thought of it first. Darn.
All I can say is...Don't blame sugar. It doesn't force anybody to eat it.