Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Is Sugar Toxic?
NYTimes ^ | April 13, 2011 | GARY TAUBES

Posted on 04/19/2011 3:11:57 PM PDT by newzjunkey

...When I set out to interview public health authorities and researchers for this article, they would often initiate the interview with some variation of the comment “surely you’ve spoken to Robert Lustig,” not because Lustig has done any of the key research on sugar himself, which he hasn’t, but because he’s willing to insist publicly and unambiguously, when most researchers are not, that sugar is a toxic substance that people abuse...

...What we have to keep in mind, says Walter Glinsmann, the F.D.A. administrator who was the primary author on the 1986 report and who now is an adviser to the Corn Refiners Association, is that sugar and high-fructose corn syrup might be toxic, as Lustig argues, but so might any substance if it’s consumed in ways or in quantities that are unnatural for humans...

...It very well may be true that sugar and high-fructose corn syrup, because of the unique way in which we metabolize fructose and at the levels we now consume it, cause fat to accumulate in our livers followed by insulin resistance and metabolic syndrome, and so trigger the process that leads to heart disease, diabetes and obesity...

(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Government; Testing
KEYWORDS: cad; chd; diabetes; foodpolice; liverdamage; lustig; nafld; obesity; sugar; toxic

1 posted on 04/19/2011 3:12:00 PM PDT by newzjunkey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: newzjunkey

There might be something to this. I think it is funny too, because a lot of folks, even on FR, think the worst thing about sugar substitutes. Its all poison in large amounts..


2 posted on 04/19/2011 3:17:10 PM PDT by Paradox (Obama gets Trumped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: newzjunkey

Try living without it sometime.


3 posted on 04/19/2011 3:23:36 PM PDT by cripplecreek (Remember the River Raisin! (look it up))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: newzjunkey

BTW - How are your buddies in Hamas doing today? Rocketed any school busses killing children on purpose lately?

4 posted on 04/19/2011 3:30:11 PM PDT by Uncle Miltie (0bamanomics: Trickle Up Poverty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: newzjunkey
Oh yeah:

Israeli Boy Dies After Gaza Terrorists Fire Missile at School Bus

Sunday, April 17, 2011, 1:12 PM

5 posted on 04/19/2011 3:33:11 PM PDT by Uncle Miltie (0bamanomics: Trickle Up Poverty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: newzjunkey
Paid bloggers posting on FR with hidden agendas, really disgust me!
6 posted on 04/19/2011 3:36:21 PM PDT by Errant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: newzjunkey
But hey! Rocketing school busses helps Hamas even-up the body-count. I know you're loving it.

-----------------------------------------------------------

UN: Palestinians are ready for statehood

Tuesday, April 12, 2011 7:15:26 PM · 24 of 35

newzjunkey to Uncle Miltie

During the period 9/29/00 to 2/28/11, 85% of deaths have been at the hands of the IDF.

6,407 Palestinians killed by the IDF.

1,141 Israelis and foreign citizens by Palestinians.

Israel continues to block imports and exports from Gaza by air and sea and still has over 120 illegal “settlements” in occupied territories.

------------------------------------------------------------

Moral equivalence by Body-Count. Whose your daddy?


7 posted on 04/19/2011 3:38:09 PM PDT by Uncle Miltie (0bamanomics: Trickle Up Poverty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: newzjunkey

Chemical Name: Sugar
Synonym: Sucrose, Beet Sugar, Cane Sugar, Confectioner’s Sugar
CAS Number: 57-50-1
Chemical Formula: C12H22O11

Section XI. Toxicological Infomation

RTECS Number: WN6500000
Routes of Exposure: Eye contact. Ingestion. Inhalation. Skin contact.
Toxicity Data: ORL-rat LD50: 29700 mg/kg; IPR-mus LD50: 14000 mg/kg
Chronic Toxic Effects: This product has no known chronic effects. Repeated or prolong exposure to this compound is not known to aggravate medical conditions.

Short answer: NO


8 posted on 04/19/2011 3:39:51 PM PDT by Delta 21 (Make your choice ! There are NO civilians.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Delta 21

Short answer is wrong.


9 posted on 04/19/2011 3:41:45 PM PDT by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: newzjunkey
Is Sugar Toxic?

What absolute moronic crap. Carbohydrates (composed of polymers of mostly glucose) are one of the three macronutrients, fats and proteins being the other two. Sucrose is 50% fructose, 50% glucose. The danger of glucose or fructose is only in the context of a hypercaloric diet over a long period of time. Otherwise the body shifts substrate usage around to compensate for relative amounts of macronutrients. Have a hypercaloric diet with a lot of carbohydrates? The body will shift away from fat oxidation and toward glucose oxidation to protect itself from too much free serum glucose. The amount of kilocalories in the hypercaloric diet in excess of total energy expenditure are then stored in the form of dietary fats in adipose tissues. Dietary proteins in excess of amino acid needs for protein synthesis are always burned in the ketogenic or glucogenic cycles, depending on the type of the amino acid.
10 posted on 04/19/2011 3:43:20 PM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
Read these books:

Why we get fat, and what to do about it - Gary Taubes

Good Calories, bad calories - Gary Taubes

Sweet but dangerous - John Yudkin (oft-quoted/cited by Taubes)

11 posted on 04/19/2011 3:58:06 PM PDT by pa_dweller (Thy princes are rebellious, and companions of thieves:... Isa 1:23)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: newzjunkey
Is Sugar Toxic?

I sure hope not. As a long distance cyclist I regularly consume 10k-15k calories of refined sugar each week.
12 posted on 04/19/2011 4:00:25 PM PDT by WackySam (To argue with a man who has renounced his reason is like giving medicine to the dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: newzjunkey

Its not as toxic as High Fructose Corn Syrup...


13 posted on 04/19/2011 4:02:37 PM PDT by Little Ray (The Gods of the Copybook Heading, with terror and slaughter return!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WackySam

if you are exercising, no, it is okay, you are using it

people who are sedentary do not use it up and it triggers an insulin response and yu will gain weight

reduction in simple sugars and simple carbohydrates DOES allow for fat burning, just make sure you dont cut out all carbs.


14 posted on 04/19/2011 4:22:38 PM PDT by RaceBannon (RON PAUL: THE PARTY OF TRUTHERS, TRAITORS AND UFO CHASERS!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: newzjunkey

In large enough quantities water can be toxic. Stupid question.


15 posted on 04/19/2011 4:26:11 PM PDT by FourPeas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Little Ray

hfcs is the bad stuff


16 posted on 04/19/2011 4:41:37 PM PDT by truthfreedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Little Ray

Sugar is sugar to the body. It all metabolizes the same.


17 posted on 04/19/2011 4:50:23 PM PDT by TigersEye (Who crashed the markets on 9/15/08 and why?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: newzjunkey

The dose makes the poison.


18 posted on 04/19/2011 5:07:23 PM PDT by Eagle Eye (A blind clock finds a nut at least twice a day.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon

When I got off the sugar, using Atkins, I never felt better. I lost 140 lbs restricting carbs, and with no sugar ever. I’m back to using a little, but I seriously think it’s harmful to me unless used very sparingly. Note: this is not scientific, just my experience.


19 posted on 04/19/2011 5:21:23 PM PDT by SoDak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: SoDak

I too found that I felt better physically with a severly restricted intake of carbs, but mentally I was in a tortured state because I love pasta, bread, and some sweets. I’d rather have to work off the carbs and enjoy daily living.


20 posted on 04/19/2011 5:37:01 PM PDT by JustaDumbBlonde (Don't wish doom on your enemies. Plan it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: pa_dweller
Taubes seems to think there is a metabolic advantage to a low carb diet. For some reason he doesn't realize that the total number of calories is more important than the ratio of macronutrients.

Demonizing one macronutrient over another is a common trait of diet fads and is exactly what Taubes engages in. Taubes understands that it's easier to sell diet advice if you claim that fats or carbs are the problem while ignoring the fact that it's really all about calories consumed vs. calories burned. Of course, a simple explanation like total calories consumed being the problem isn't the kind of information that people will pay for.

There are all sorts of pitfalls with Taubes' view of nutrition. You'd think a guy selling books about dieting would have learned the laws of thermodynamics before trying to defy them.

21 posted on 04/19/2011 6:09:11 PM PDT by Mase (Save me from the people who would save me from myself!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon
people who are sedentary do not use it up and it triggers an insulin response and yu will gain weight

Are you saying it's the insulin response that causes people to gain weight? If so, people who consume large amounts of caffeine would also be more likely to be overweight or obese. I've never seen anything correlating caffeine consumption with obesity.

22 posted on 04/19/2011 6:14:10 PM PDT by Mase (Save me from the people who would save me from myself!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: newzjunkey

Sorry - I won’t give the New York Times a hit even if it’s free... that said, being the NYT’s they probably feel sugar is poison because they believe every leftist nut ever created... and to hell with research - they know what they ‘feel’...


23 posted on 04/19/2011 6:18:59 PM PDT by GOPJ (Understanding the Koran: http://www.citizenwarrior.com/2009/05/terrifying-brilliance-of-islam.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoDak
I seriously think it’s harmful to me unless used very sparingly. Note: this is not scientific, just my experience.

That's the difference between us and them - you know your position isn't 'scientific' ... but you express your opinion - AS AN OPINION. For liberals - anything they 'feel' becomes 'fact'.

24 posted on 04/19/2011 6:21:10 PM PDT by GOPJ (Understanding the Koran: http://www.citizenwarrior.com/2009/05/terrifying-brilliance-of-islam.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Mase

neither have I ever read that caffiene raises or lowers insulin, got a link?


25 posted on 04/19/2011 6:45:53 PM PDT by RaceBannon (RON PAUL: THE PARTY OF TRUTHERS, TRAITORS AND UFO CHASERS!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon
We've known for some time now that consuming caffeine triggers the release of insulin. To this date, I don't believe anyone has been able to determine why that occurs, but I may be wrong.

Some people want to blame the rise of an overweight population on all sorts of things, but the real cause remains pretty simple. Obesity results from an imbalance between energy consumed in foods and energy burned by metabolic processes and physical activity. There is no bad food, only bad diets. And this, combined with a serious lack of physical activity in an ever more convenience-oriented country, is why Americans are fat. If people were truly concerned about the problem of obesity, they would be focused on our sedentary lifestyle rather than on the absurdity of blaming fat, or carbs, or processed foods, or high fructose corn syrup and so on.

26 posted on 04/19/2011 7:46:53 PM PDT by Mase (Save me from the people who would save me from myself!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: newzjunkey

Thanks for posting. I’m halfway thru.


27 posted on 04/20/2011 1:02:03 AM PDT by neverdem (Xin loi minh oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: newzjunkey; PA Engineer; decimon; Stalwart; austinmark; FreedomCalls; IslandJeff; JRochelle; ...
This paragraph is from almost dead center of the printer friendly page of this NY Times' Magazine article.

At the time, many of the key observations cited to argue that dietary fat caused heart disease actually support the sugar theory as well. During the Korean War, pathologists doing autopsies on American soldiers killed in battle noticed that many had significant plaques in their arteries, even those who were still teenagers, while the Koreans killed in battle did not. The atherosclerotic plaques in the Americans were attributed to the fact that they ate high-fat diets and the Koreans ate low-fat. But the Americans were also eating high-sugar diets, while the Koreans, like the Japanese, were not.

Gary Taubes' article is dated April 13, 2011. On April 9, 2011, I wrote in comment# 6 on the following thread:

Atherosclerotic plaques formed during a late and limited time period in life

"...According to my pathology teacher in med school, they found "fatty streaks" in in various major arteries while performing autopsies of fairly young American[s] killed in action during the Korean War. These "fatty streaks" were thought to be precursors of atherosclerotic arterial disease, in particular, coronary artery disease."...

That pathology lecture was over two decades ago. It's nice to have a recent article verify my memory after the fact. This is one of the best Times' articles in a long time, IMHO.

To be honest, evidence against saturated fat in the diet is also accumulating.

UNC study helps clarify link between high-fat diet and type 2 diabetes.

This is a combined ping. FReepmail me if you want on or off the diabetes or immunology ping lists.

28 posted on 04/20/2011 9:33:13 AM PDT by neverdem (Xin loi minh oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aruanan; newzjunkey; Errant; Delta 21; mlo; pa_dweller; WackySam; Little Ray; RaceBannon; ...
What absolute moronic crap.

I used to think the same way too, but it's not. Just because it's in the New York Times' Magazine doesn't mean it's not true.

"The phrase Lustig uses when he describes this concept is 'isocaloric but not isometabolic.' This means we can eat 100 calories of glucose (from a potato or bread or other starch) or 100 calories of sugar (half glucose and half fructose), and they will be metabolized differently and have a different effect on the body. The calories are the same, but the metabolic consequences are quite different."

Fructose, insulin resistance, and metabolic dyslipidemia

Figure 2, "Hepatic fructose metabolism: A highly lipogenic pathway," does a good job showing the pathway.

"Fructose is readily absorbed from the diet and rapidly metabolized principally in the liver. Fructose can provide carbon atoms for both the glycerol and the acyl portions of triglyceride. Fructose is thus a highly efficient inducer of de novo lipogenesis. High concentrations of fructose can serve as a relatively unregulated source of acetyl CoA. In contrast to glucose, dietary fructose does NOT stimulate insulin or leptin (which are both important regulators of energy intake and body adiposity). Stimulated triglyceride synthesis is likely to lead to hepatic accumulation of triglyceride, which has been shown to reduce hepatic insulin sensitivity, as well as increased formation of VLDL particles due to higher substrate availability, increased apoB stability, and higher MTP, the critical factor in VLDL assembly."

When I went to med school, 1987 - 91, there was no mention of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, NAFLD. There is now, including in kids. Check out the keyword nafld.

I checked out high fructose corn syrup. HFCS-55, the version used in soft drinks, is 55 % fructose, 42 % glucose and 3 % other sugars. 56/42 is the same as 4/3. You're getting almost 4 molecules of fructose for every 3 molecules of glucose with HFCS-55.

29 posted on 04/20/2011 10:46:59 AM PDT by neverdem (Xin loi minh oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Thank you very much!


30 posted on 04/20/2011 11:30:27 AM PDT by Little Ray (The Gods of the Copybook Heading, with terror and slaughter return!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Lord, there is nothing good left to eat! Can’t eat saturated fat, can’t eat sugar, can’t have empty carbohydrates; that’s 98% of a pleasant diet out the window!


31 posted on 04/20/2011 12:58:54 PM PDT by ottbmare (off-the-track Thoroughbred mare)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
"The phrase Lustig uses when he describes this concept is 'isocaloric but not isometabolic.' This means we can eat 100 calories of glucose (from a potato or bread or other starch) or 100 calories of sugar (half glucose and half fructose), and they will be metabolized differently and have a different effect on the body. The calories are the same, but the metabolic consequences are quite different."

Yes, as I, a Ph.D. in human nutrition/nutritional biology (2001), said earlier, relative proportions of macronutrients, especially in the context of a hypercaloric diet, have effects on how the body metabolizes them. The major effect of a hypercaloric diet with protein and carbohydrates in excess of energy or protein synthesis needs, is to shift the body's oxidation away from fat oxidation and toward oxidation of proteins and carbohydrates to protect the body. The problem with fructose attains importance in the context of a hypercaloric diet. It's very, very easy in our food-wealthy society to eat far in excess of one's physiological needs. This can lead to trouble. It's probably, though, not as much trouble as we'd have if the population was, at large, as chronically underfed as they are overfed. And the situation is usually going to be either one extreme or the other, due to most people's inability to find and stick to a golden mean.
32 posted on 04/20/2011 1:21:20 PM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: ottbmare
Lord, there is nothing good left to eat! Can’t eat saturated fat, can’t eat sugar, can’t have empty carbohydrates; that’s 98% of a pleasant diet out the window!

That's why the Lord provided a wealth of spices!

33 posted on 04/20/2011 2:26:51 PM PDT by neverdem (Xin loi minh oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: neverdem; aruanan
Thanks for commenting on this subject! It deserves more than just a post and run as the OP had done.

I wasn't able to read the entire article because, I'm not going to do the NT the favor of signing up.

"It very well may be true that sugar and high-fructose corn syrup"

Typical garbage from the NT. Probably because what's left of their dumbed down patrons, can't fathom that "sugar" can mean a number of things. This article (what I've seen of it) wasn't written to educate the public, but to push an agenda.

1. IMO, HFCS (High Fructose Corn Syrup, a synthetic product - about 3 types) may is poisonous to our livers as you stated. According to studies, it must be almost entirely metabolized by the liver. The liver goes into hyper-drive, production of insulin and leptin levels are lower, and ghrelin levels higher. Instead of feeling full sooner, you're still hungry and consume more (hence 32 ounce drinks). The livers of the rats on the high fructose diet become cirrhotic. People who drink more than one soda a day, run a high risk of NAFLD.

2. On the other hand, most people think of "sugar" as the white stuff we buy at the grocery. This raw form of sugar "100% sucrose" breaks down in the body into glucose (able to be absorbed by every cell), and naturally occurring forms of "fructose". Some researches believe this digestion process, somehow inhibits the ability of fructose to damage the liver.

3. The author, by not explaining the differences isn't helping to educate. I'm not sure what his agenda is. I do believe we need to eliminate as much HFCS from our diets as possible and switch back to sucrose in drinks like we had in my skinny youth. Everything in moderation of course.

Thanks again, education is the key ...

34 posted on 04/20/2011 3:22:28 PM PDT by Errant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
I am surprised at the info you posted. Thanks for pinging me to it.

You're getting almost 4 molecules of fructose for every 3 molecules of glucose with HFCS-55.

If I understand it correctly the 4 molecules of fructose in HFCS-55 is metabolized just fine and the 3 molecules of glucose is like refined table sugar and is not fine. No? Or is sucrose (table sugar) OK?

Another question I have about it is; is this a significant metabolic difference or is it simply a measurable difference due to more sophisticated methods of looking into metabolic processes? I realize those may not be mutually exclusive things.

35 posted on 04/20/2011 4:27:19 PM PDT by TigersEye (Who crashed the markets on 9/15/08 and why?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Errant; neverdem
1. IMO, HFCS (High Fructose Corn Syrup, a synthetic product - about 3 types) may is poisonous to our livers as you stated. According to studies, it must be almost entirely metabolized by the liver.

The fructose in high fructose corn syrup is the same fructose that is in an apple or sugar cane. It's like glucose: glucose is glucose is glucose.

The two most commonly used forms of HFCS are roughly 50/50 fructose/glucose (HFCS42 is 42% fructose, 53% glucose, HFCS55 is 55%fructose, 41% glucose), similar to the fructose/glucose ratio in sucrose. Fructose and glucose are chemical identities. They aren't generalized names for broad classes of chemicals that vary greatly.
36 posted on 04/20/2011 4:38:51 PM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: aruanan
The fructose in high fructose corn syrup is the same fructose that is in an apple or sugar cane.

Don't be too hasty. Fructose comes in a variety of molecular structures. Hydrolyzed corn starch is used as the raw material for production of HFCS through enzymatic processes. Maybe, the type of fructose produced by enzymes isn't exactly the same fructose structure as that produced by plants in nature (at least in relative quantities)?

I'm not an expert, but I don't think we know enough about the digestive processes, to understand everything that happens when the body processes these different fructose molecules in quantities not normally found in nature.

It makes far more sense from a health stand point, to stick with the sugars our bodies are familiar with, consumed in packages our digestive systems know how to handle due to thousands of years of evolution.

Example of two different fructose molecules:


37 posted on 04/20/2011 7:01:39 PM PDT by Errant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye; Errant
If I understand it correctly the 4 molecules of fructose in HFCS-55 is metabolized just fine and the 3 molecules of glucose is like refined table sugar and is not fine. No? Or is sucrose (table sugar) OK?

No on both counts. I'll try to explain. Go back to the figure of a hepatocyte, a cell in the liver, in comment# 29. It shows how the metabolism of fructose promotes the formation of triglycerides, one of the original polyesters, from the glycerol "spine" of triglycerides and three free fatty acids that had been converted into fatty acyl-CoA.

Table sugar, sucrose, aka a disaccarhide, will get hydrolyzed and break down into glucose and fructose, both 6 carbon monosaccarhides that get metabolized differently because of the difference in structure, glucose having a hexagon like structure, fructose having a pentagon like structure with part of a tail of methanol, especially if you're swallowing too many calories. The vertices in these polygons are carbon atoms, except the O's, oxygen atoms. It's a common convention in the structural drawing of organic chemistry. I'll let you guess what the H's mean. Hint, it's part of water.

Errant, the linear structures of D & L fructose is somewhat misleading as single bonded carbon atoms have 120 degree angles with neighboring atoms within a molecule. Think of methane. Carbon is in the center of a tetrahedron of 4 hydrogen atoms. Each angle from the carbon is 120 degrees. That's why the molecule can flop around and make ringed conformations in equilibrium with the "linear" structures, like you have in comment# 37.

The good part of sucrose is glucose. Your brain doesn't work on anything else. Your heart and most of the rest of your body can use free fatty acids for fuel, but not your brain. As I tried to explain, excess fructose tends toward de novo lipogenesis, i.e. the making of new fat, as in triglycerides from the glycerol "spine."

Another question I have about it is; is this a significant metabolic difference or is it simply a measurable difference due to more sophisticated methods of looking into metabolic processes? I realize those may not be mutually exclusive things.

IMHO, I think this a significant metabolic difference. With the epidemic of diabesity, I think the HFCS manufacturers should be made to prove otherwise when people are taking in calories in excess of their daily need. Since most individuals don't have their own personal dietitians, I'd say that for any sedentary individuals to use sucrose sparingly and avoid fructose except when it's natural like fruit.

38 posted on 04/20/2011 8:14:31 PM PDT by neverdem (Xin loi minh oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Errant
Don't be too hasty. Fructose comes in a variety of molecular structures.

If you ate L-fructose, or any other L sugar, you wouldn't be able to metabolize it at all. If you were to eat a racemic mixture of D and L, your body would absorb and metabolize the D and ignore the L. There was talk about 30 years ago about trying to use L forms of sugar in cooking to produce foods that would look and smell and taste exactly the same but be nutritionally null (or reduced) for weight loss purposes. All the sugars, both fructose and glucose, and a few others, in corn starch are D-enantiomers because that's the form that plants make.
39 posted on 04/20/2011 8:36:27 PM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Thank you. My chemistry is pretty sad but I think I followed that. (I do know what ‘H’ stands for. lol) I guess I have a more basic question about HFCS. Do you see any inherent problem with it? I get the impression from your closing statements that quantity, with an eye towards one’s personal metabolism, is the main danger to any type of sugar. That has been my basic understanding along with the notion that products made with HFCS have more sugars in them to achieve the same taste compared to something sweetened with sucrose.


40 posted on 04/20/2011 8:55:44 PM PDT by TigersEye (Who crashed the markets on 9/15/08 and why?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: newzjunkey

The whole article

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17Sugar-t.html?_r=1&sq=robert lustig&st=cse&scp=1&pagewanted=print


41 posted on 04/20/2011 9:06:12 PM PDT by restornu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye; aruanan
I guess I have a more basic question about HFCS. Do you see any inherent problem with it? I get the impression from your closing statements that quantity, with an eye towards one’s personal metabolism, is the main danger to any type of sugar.

It's the amount of fructose going into the liver becoming triglycerides either making a fatty liver or contributing to obesity overall. Excess glucose can replace the glycogen, a carbohydrate that's the storage form of glucose, but it has a limited maximum amount, which is stored in the liver and muscles that's depleted with intense physical activity. Only when it gets too low that you switch into using free fatty acids do you start to deplete your fat stores, IIRC. It's a neet strategy for famines, but we haven't had too many lately.

It's not from a precautionary principle that makes me concernced. There's a good correlation between obesity, NAFLD, the epidemic of Type II Diabetes, formerly known as Adult Onset Diabetes, as well as MODY, Maturity Onset Diabetes of the Young with the consumption of HFCS over the last few decades.

Parents can't use physical discipline with children any more, so the carrot and stick philosophy has been reduced to just carrots.

So I'm leary about HFCS-55. They use HFCS-42, 42 % fructose, in baked and processed stuff that you eat. I doubt an occasional treat will kill you.

The Truth About High Fructose Corn Syrup - The Science Behind the Sweetener

I thought that was a very interesting article. You might want to check comment# 1 on that thread. You may find an interesting link.

Any corrections are always appreciated.

42 posted on 04/20/2011 11:50:32 PM PDT by neverdem (Xin loi minh oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Thanks again for the reply. I will check out the article.


43 posted on 04/20/2011 11:54:40 PM PDT by TigersEye (Who crashed the markets on 9/15/08 and why?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: neverdem; TigersEye
It's the amount of fructose going into the liver becoming triglycerides either making a fatty liver or contributing to obesity overall. Excess glucose can replace the glycogen, a carbohydrate that's the storage form of glucose, but it has a limited maximum amount, which is stored in the liver and muscles that's depleted with intense physical activity. Only when it gets too low that you switch into using free fatty acids do you start to deplete your fat stores, IIRC. It's a neet strategy for famines, but we haven't had too many lately.

De novo fat synthesis is very limited in humans. It happens in the context of a hypercaloric diet and when the body's shift of substrate usage toward glucose and away from fats cannot take care of the excess glucose. The few days supply of glucagon, so-called animal starch, is a small buffer for excess glucose, used principally for intense physical activity and by the brain.

The basic fuel used by most of the body most of the time is fat. Intramuscular fat is continually replenished by free fatty acids that are continually being released from and returned to adipose tissue. Most of the fat stored in adipose tissue is dietary fat. That gets built up when energy balance becomes positive. In this context there is preferential burning of proteins and glucose because 1) there is no storage form of proteins and 2) there is only a few days' storage capacity for glucose. All you need to deplete fat stores is a negative energy balance. It only has to be a little each day to results in pounds of fat loss over the course of a year. This can be caused by a decrease of energy intake and/or an increase of energy use, either by increased lean body mass or increased physical activity. You don't need a famine.

The proposed "neet strategy" for famines above is a mischaracterization of a common daily phenomenon. But the idea that free fatty acids are used only when glucagon stores are depleted is simply not true.
44 posted on 04/21/2011 4:29:50 AM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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