Posted on 02/10/2008 9:22:11 PM PST by neverdem
They already volunteered. Fit service members are not self selecting for phony sugar because they are already obese. In other words, they are not overweight already; they have no reason to use artificial sweeteners. Logistically, it would be more convenient to study the military and their spouses and families.
It would also be easier to test HFCS sweetened pop versus sucrose sweetened pop. I have no more reason to trust the makers of HFCS than the makers of artificial sweeteners. The link in comment# 20 is a review article. I'ts quite damning of HFCS. I used to think all 6 carbons sugars were functionally equivalent. Fructose promotes lipid production in hepatocytes.
It would be interesting to learn more about how one gets a migraine from a compound that isn't digested. Feeding a lab animal sucralose in quantities that don't relate to real world human consumption is also an issue. Bottom line, if there was any real relationship between sucralose and increased weights in vital organs the FDA would pull it immediately. This, along with aspartame and olestra are the most tested food ingredients in history.
As a comparison, I've seen a clinical study published in the New England Journal of Medicine where a large group of people who were convinced that aspartame was responsible for giving them headaches were brought together for a test. Half the group was given a large amount of aspartame and half were given a placebo. The results showed that 35 percent of the subjects had headaches after taking aspartame, compared with 45 percent who had headaches after taking the placebo.
In one study published in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, subjects who believed they were allergic to aspartame received up to 2,000 milligrams of aspartame, the amount contained in about 12 cans of diet soft drink. Not one of the subjects had an allergic reaction after receiving aspartame.
Results of a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study published in a later issue of the JACI, demonstrate that aspartame is no more likely than the placebo to cause urticaria (hives) or angioedema (swelling).
FWIW
I think it's nothing more than a calorie distraction by people who have no idea what they're doing. That said, I think the research will eventually prove that artificial trans fats increase levels of bad cholesterol and lower levels of good cholesterol. Of course, saturated fat has been shown to increase levels of bad cholesterol too. Considering less than 2% of our diet consists of artificial trans fat while, on average, we get 12-15% of our calories from saturated fat, I'd say the food police and other assorted and sundry do gooders are lost.
The trans-fat issue is about power and not about health. Trans fat serves as an anti-oxidant that inhibits the development of free radicals. By banning it the do gooders are ensuring that we'll be consuming a lot more food that has been oxidized and, therefore, contains more free radicals. Free radicals present a much greater danger to consumer health than trans-fat. This is just another example of the unintended consequences of do gooding by people who never bothered to study chemistry, nutrition or physiology.
Here's a good thread that debated the issue about as fully as I've seen.
If fructose is the enemy then you'd have to demonize sucrose as well. There are two formulations of HFCS being commercialized today. The formula used mostly in soft drinks is 55% fructose and 45% glucose. Sucrose, of course, is 50% fructose and 50% glucose. Does anyone really think a 5% variance is responsible for all the alleged maladies?
The other commercialized formula of HFCS is just 42% fructose and 58% glucose. This formula is commonly used in baked goods, cereals, and other processed foods. If fructose is really the enemy, then the anti-HFCS crowd should be touting the benefits of this particular formula of HFCS over sucrose.
bump
Fructose, insulin resistance, and metabolic dyslipidemia
That's an interesting review article with 123 references.
It would be interesting to learn more about how one gets a migraine from a compound that isn't digested.
That's besides the point for those who get migraines from sucralose.
Feeding a lab animal sucralose in quantities that don't relate to real world human consumption is also an issue.
Whether right or wrong, it has become a testing standard for to screen carcinogenicity and teratogenicity.
As a comparison, I've seen a clinical study published in the New England Journal of Medicine where a large group of people who were convinced that aspartame was responsible for giving them headaches were brought together for a test. Half the group was given a large amount of aspartame and half were given a placebo. The results showed that 35 percent of the subjects had headaches after taking aspartame, compared with 45 percent who had headaches after taking the placebo.
It's called the placebo effect for a reason.
In one study published in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, subjects who believed they were allergic to aspartame received up to 2,000 milligrams of aspartame, the amount contained in about 12 cans of diet soft drink. Not one of the subjects had an allergic reaction after receiving aspartame.
Results of a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study published in a later issue of the JACI, demonstrate that aspartame is no more likely than the placebo to cause urticaria (hives) or angioedema (swelling).
Allergic reactions are often idiosyncratic much like sucralose induced migraines. A headache is a symptom. Urticaria or angioedema are physical signs of an acute reaction, often allergic.
There's 10 percent more fructose than glucose, but fructose is sweeter so you can use less by weight to sweeten the same drink. Hypertension, obesity, and type II diabetes are huge risk factors for morbidity and mortality as well as the cost of healthcare. If the the increase use of HFCS is behind it, the sooner that is determined, the better.
The other commercialized formula of HFCS is just 42% fructose and 58% glucose. This formula is commonly used in baked goods, cereals, and other processed foods. If fructose is really the enemy, then the anti-HFCS crowd should be touting the benefits of this particular formula of HFCS over sucrose.
Consumption of high-fructose corn syrup in beverages may play a role in the epidemic of obesity
It's a pretty good article, IMHO. The HFCS in solid processed foods wasn't related to obesity, IIRC. Maybe they would be better off using just glucose as a sweetener? That's what your brain uses as fuel. BTW, do you work for the food industry? I'm a family practice doc. My undergraduate major was chemistry.
Bring back sugar. Can we sue the government to get sugar back? All this fake sweetener is killing us.
“I switched to Sweet ‘n’ Low. I got artificial diabetes!” — Rodney Dangerfield.
I believe it.
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.