Posted on 10/25/2011 8:59:04 AM PDT by Red Badger
Can citric acid consumption cause or exacerbate acid reflux? Sure. If you consume enough of it. You can die from drinking too much water, after all.
What I'm saying is that the amount used in foods, beverages and pharmaceuticals is so small that it will have no impact on the average person. All bets are off however, if someone drinks a case of Mountain Dew every day.
Then find one. All the information I see, plus my own experience, says you are wrong.
When male rats were given water sweetened with high-fructose corn syrup in addition to a standard diet of rat chow, the animals gained much more weight than male rats that received water sweetened with table sugar, or sucrose, along with the standard diet. The concentration of sugar in the sucrose solution was the same as is found in some commercial soft drinks, while the high-fructose corn syrup solution was half as concentrated as most sodas, including the orange soft drink...
Even with half concentrations, the rats gained more weight. That tells me that there is a difference, however small. The molecular make-up is different in some way that the body recognizes.
Nobody is saying sugar is good or that it doesn't cause weight gain and other ill effects, it's just that HFCS are worse and possibly much worse than sugar alone. There is some mechanism that causes this, and the only reason must be that we are too susceptible to storage of calories from HFCS vs. sugar.
The Princeton study is fraught with problems. This is what happens when psychologists head studies that should be run by biochemists.
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 of a human drinking a total of 20 cans of 12 ounce sodas per day. If you overwhelm the body with anything, bad things can happen.
The Princeton findings were good for people who care nothing about the truth and only want to create alarm. It also plays into the preconceived notion of those who want to demonize a 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. This is the main reason why we have to deal with junk science. Telling the public everything is ok, is NOT how you attract grant money.
The molecular make-up is different in some way that the body recognizes.
You believe in things you can't explain? That's not how science is supposed to work. If you have any evidence that this is the case, then please share it here.
Nobody is saying sugar is good or that it doesn't cause weight gain and other ill effects, it's just that HFCS are worse and possibly much worse than sugar alone.
This is just more feelings. Science is about evidence and I don't see one whit of evidence that this is true.
There is some mechanism that causes this, and the only reason must be that we are too susceptible to storage of calories from HFCS vs. sugar.
Again, this is nothing more than feelings and wishful thinking. You're claiming facts that are not in evidence. This study did exactly what it was supposed to do. It got a lot of people who know nothing about nutrition, biochemistry, or human physiology all lathered up over something that doesn't exist. I'll bet this psychologist (LOL!) got all the money he needed from the NAS to continue his research and all the benefits the university will bestow on him for doing so. What passes today for research should really piss people off. But it doesn't....
That is pretty close to what I used to drink in sodas every day. I was never without a soda nearby. I weighed over 215 pounds, which is pretty bad for my body frame, I'm 5'9". I stopped drinking sodas and essentially replaced them with sugar sweetened tea and my weight dropped to 195 lbs. I have since cut out the tea, replaced with plain water, and my weight is now around 188 and has been stable for a couple of years. I don't exercise and my job is basically sedentary for most of the day. The HFCS consumption now is only a small fraction of what it was. I know this is not scientific, but it works for me........
It is interesting to note that in countries like Japan, England and Mexico, where they do not use HFCS in any significant quantity, obesity has become a serious problem.
How much did this “scientific” study cost the taxpayers?
Fresh fruit is not high fructose corn syrup, is it? How many carbs are in an apple vs. a can of coke?
Everything in moderation, of course. But show me someone with a tummy, and I will find sugar in their diet (in general!)
I feel like a million bucks after losing 20 pounds this summer, treating sugar like poison. (And yes, fruit juices are on my banned list).
Just because something is *natural* doesn’t make it *good for you.* Try going out and eating a poisonous plant. Also, just because something *tastes really good* doesn’t necessarily make it *good* for you! Opium and Marijuana, which are lovely plants, would make me feel *really good* as it destroyed my brain if I consumed it every single day.
Laura Ingalls is a favorite example of mine - she disliked sugar and lived into her 90s. I like the idea.
No, HFCS is made up of glucose and fructose. Fructose alone is fruit sugar.
How many carbs are in an apple vs. a can of coke?
In a large apple, about 115 calories. In a 12 oz. can of Coke, 140 calories.
Everything in moderation, of course.
Absolutely.
But show me someone with a tummy, and I will find sugar in their diet (in general!)
So if I avoid carbohydrates altogether, and instead consume more calories than I burn from protein and fat, I won't get a tummy bulge? No, I didn't think so.
I feel like a million bucks after losing 20 pounds this summer
Excellent!
treating sugar like poison.
But it isn't poison now, is it?
(And yes, fruit juices are on my banned list).
You can still lose weight and enjoy fruit juice. As long as you burn more energy than you consume, you will continue to lose weight. The source of the calories isn't the issue; energy consumed vs. energy burned is.
Just because something is *natural* doesn’t make it *good for you.*
Of course not.
Also, just because something *tastes really good* doesn’t necessarily make it *good* for you!
Doesn't make it bad for you either. There are no bad foods, only bad diets.
Laura Ingalls is a favorite example of mine - she disliked sugar and lived into her 90s. I like the idea.
She never had fresh fruit, bread, pasta, milk, potatoes, ice cream or beer? Sounds like a horrible way to go through life. But to each their own, I suppose.
First, sucrose is composed of equal amounts of the two simple sugars -- it is 50 percent fructose and 50 percent glucose -- but the typical high-fructose corn syrup used in this study features a slightly imbalanced ratio, containing 55 percent fructose and 42 percent glucose. Larger sugar molecules called higher saccharides make up the remaining 3 percent of the sweetener. Second, as a result of the manufacturing process for high-fructose corn syrup, the fructose molecules in the sweetener are free and unbound, ready for absorption and utilization. In contrast, every fructose molecule in sucrose that comes from cane sugar or beet sugar is bound to a corresponding glucose molecule and must go through an extra metabolic step before it can be utilized.
If you look at my post (#48) you'll see where I said: Can you explain how glucose and fructose from hydrolyzed sucrose is chemically different than glucose and fructose from HFCS?
Please notice the word hydrolyzed. Do you know what that word means? Good thing you have lots of sucrase in your gut (it's an enzyme) to quickly break down the sucrose into it's monosaccharide components (glucose and fructose). At this point, the sucrose becomes a free sugar just like HFCS.
Maybe you're thinking that this process causes the glucose and fructose in sucrose to be absorbed at a slower rate than the glucose and fructose in HFCS. It's a good question. Rather than have you look it up, and risk hurting your brain in the process, let me tell you that the glycemic index for both sucrose and HFCS falls into the same rage: 55~60. But hey, I'm an industry shill so I won't ask you to take my word for it. Let's go to the research....
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?
Finally, there are two types of HFCS commercialized today. One is 55% fructose, 42% glucose and 3% higher sugars (that are all converted by the body to glucose. It is used primarily in beverages. The other type is just 42% fructose, 53% glucose and 5% higher sugars. This mixture is used primarily in baked goods and processed foods. You may not realize it, but these proportions make it very similar to sucrose.
High fructose corn syrup is essentially the same as digested table sugar. Honey, is basically high fructose corn syrup made by bees.
The body will use this energy for any immediate needs. If there are no immediate needs, the body will convert it to glycogen, which is stored in the liver and muscles. If the glycogen reserves are full, the body will convert the energy to depot fat. This is human nutrition 101. It's unfortunate you never studied it.
If there was any other information in my post you'd like to take issue with, please be specific as to what that is and I will explain it to you further.
When you need medical advice, do you go to your auto mechanic or do you go to someone who went to medical school and has worked in his profession for years? When you're doctor explains to you how your body works, do you call him an industry shill?
When he distorts research, I certainly do. Your first study involves subjective participant rated "satiety", not a chemical-based investigation of digestion. Fail #1.
Research number two states that the HFCS is similar in production of the four regulatory chemicals (not "the same"... "similar"), and otherwise sheds no light on what the differences might be or whether the effects are different because of other processes not studied. Fail #2.
Study number three is also limited to the same four substances, was short term, and makes no statement about HFCS as a whole, simply about its effects on those regulators. Fail #3.
The way you cherry-pick statements, you should work for the global-warming industry...
You've never taken a biochemistry class in your life (otherwise you wouldn't be embarrassing yourself on the thread) but here you are offering critical opinions of the conclusions of some of the best researchers in country.
The Princeton study you ignorantly hitch your empty wagon to was conducted by a psychologist. Yet you can find nothing wrong with their methodology when, in fact, it is rife with data dredging, wishful thinking and, most likely, fraud. Even the food nazi's were appalled by the flawed methodology in this study. But not you. Why is that? No need to answer. We know it's because their conclusions fit with your bizarro belief system based on emotions in addition to the fact that you have no idea what you're talking about. It's comical that you can intentionally fabricate flaws in the linked research I provided, but be completely oblivious to the blatantly obvious problems with the Princeton study.
Please get back with me when you can explain how glucose and fructose from hydrolyzed sucrose is different in any way from the glucose and fructose in HFCS. While you're Googling, maybe you can come up with something that will explain to you just how quickly sucrase breaks down sucrose into a free sugar so that its absorption is similar to HFCS.
Even if the absorption rates were different in any meaningful way, so what? Your post #70 doesn't dispute anything I've said on the thread. You don't even know what you're arguing....maybe you're arguing that you don't have any clue what it is you're arguing about. You'll get no argument from me if that's the case. Maybe you just like to argue. People fear the things they don't understand and you clearly have no grasp of this topic.
When you need information on complex processes like the biochemistry of satiation, or the metabolization of carbohydrates, be sure to go to someone who has never studied the subject in any way shape or form. That way, you can continue believing whatever nonsense it is you want to believe.
So if I avoid carbohydrates altogether, and instead consume more calories than I burn from protein and fat, I won't get a tummy bulge? No, I didn't think so.
You absolutely would not, because your body would experience ketosis.
Exercise is completely optional for fat loss, and many people tend to eat too much afterwards. I enjoyed my sedentary method better.
Not quite that simple.
The glucose in both sugar and HFCS provide both energy, and signal the body to store fat. The fructose in both are slow acting poison, leading to Metabolic Syndrome.
The article makes the case that HFCS is worse because the compounds are free, but even if that's true it doesn't give sugar a pass.
Your accusation of "industry shill" belies your lame protest that you're simply pointing something out. Not only are you dishonest with what you post, you're dishonest with yourself.
Your "peer reviewed" study is a joke according to the peer reviewers. If you knew anything about the subject you'd better understand the peer review process and its many weaknesses. I pointed out several of the more glaring flaws in the study because my education and training has provided me with the knowledge and skills necessary to do so. This study is a complete joke but you can't tell the truth from the humbug because you've never had any training that would allow you to do so. So, as a defense mechanism, anyone who takes issue with your ignorance is labeled an industry shill or a corn purveyor in search of a customer. Talk about not having any clothes on. Talk about transparent. Hell, even I'm embarrassed for you now.
If pointing out those fact makes you unhappy then I'll be happy to pass you a tissue. Good grief, you don't even know the difference between an ad hominem and a fact. Pathetic.
No, if you eat more calories from fat and protein than you burn, you will absolutely gain weight. You can eliminate carbs from your diet, or significantly reduce them, and still get fat. It's all about energy in vs. energy out. Again, total calories is what's important, not the source of those calories.
Exercise is completely optional for fat loss, and many people tend to eat too much afterwards. I enjoyed my sedentary method better
For most people, especially as they age, fat loss is impossible without some form of regular exercise. But, as long as you consume less energy than you burn, you will not gain weight, sedentary lifestyle or not.
You made this statement about ME. It is a lie. I asked you to substantiate it from ANY of my posts on this thread. You cannot. That makes it an ad hominem attack. Just like the rest of your obfuscation.
I trust an honest reader of this thread to judge whether you have been engaged in debate or behaving like a panicked corporate shill, attempting to denigrate your opposition and argue based on selective evidence...
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.