Soylent Green
Posted on 04/20/2010 8:39:41 PM PDT by neverdem
The body uses sucrase (an enzyme) to break down sucrose into glucose and fructose.
That is one metabolic distinction between hfcs and sugar.
That's what they claim at their source.
I'll call them N&M for future reference. How rigorous is their peer review? God knows, but I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt for now.
Do you see how many of these studies employ nothing but the abstract from other studies to build their cases?
What's that supposed to mean? The most strikikng observation in the N&M article was that one less enzyme was needed to yield glycerol, the spine of triglycerides, from the metabolism of fructose, IMHO.
But it is only 5 parts more fructose than sucrose. And you think this small difference is causing all these alleged problems? That makes no sense.
Hydrolysis of sucrose yields and equal number of glucose and fructose molecules. HFCS-55 has 31 percent more fructose than glucose. Again, I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt for now as I read more and more articles about HFCS.
Will it explain why the same problems we have with obesity, diabetes and insulin resistance are occurring in countries that use little, if any, HFCS in their foods?
No, but it helps to explain the association between excess fructose and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Gondring linked a press release from last month in comment# 64. The amount of fructose comsumed by humans was proportional to the degree of pathology from liver biopsies and less desireable lipid profiles, especially triglycerides(hypertriglyceridemia). Here's a link to the abstract.
Do you believe scientific conclusions come from "consensus" or do you believe that "consensus" is pseudoscience and that anyone engaged in it, like the AGW crowd, should be viewed with a great deal of skepticism?
Why do you need to bring up that red herring? Even noted MIT AGW sceptic Richard Lindzen concedes there could be some AGW. The question is, is it significant? I'm more sceptical than he is about AGW at this point.
The back-to-back, double whammy announcements that PepsiCo (PEP) is ditching high fructose corn syrup in Gatorade along with the results of a scathing new study from researchers at Princeton make it official — allies of the controversial sweetener have lost the war. For years, the Corn Refiners Association, a trade group consisting of companies like Cargill and ADM (ADM), has been hammering away at the bad press gushing out about high fructose corn syrup. In ads, in the press and online, they argue that the sweetener is a perfectly natural product and that it is no worse for you than regular old sugar.
http://healthfreedoms.org/2010/04/19/the-death-of-high-fructose-corn-syrup/
Thanks for the comment & link.
That action is done long before the sucrose is absorbed into the body.
I thought 55 was 22% larger than 45?
HFCS-55 is 55% fructose and 42% glucose. You can look it up with a simple search.
Try it with a little kimchi and fish soup ...
One is 55% fructose, 45% glucose.
The other is 42% fructose, 58% glucose.
Anything you have that shows the percentages don't add up to 100 is something I'd like to see. Thanks.
Nope.
With the exception of some coloring it’s all natural.
Soylent Green
What was that odd, dystopic futurist movie or television show, where eating was considered embarassing, something to be done in private and sort of disgusting? They called it “goothing.”
From http://www.hfcs55.com/
Dextrose and glucose are synonyms. If you use 40 as the denominator, then there is 37.5 percent more fructose than glucose in HFCS-55.
On one of the hfcs threads that I posted, keyword hfcs, I read that it starts as HFCS-90, then they blend as needed. Having these blends in liquid form is much more convenient for the food processors and beverage makers in the handling. Sucrose has to be dissolved first. Sucrose also tends to decompose into acid/acids affecting shelf life, IIRC.
There is a tribe somewhere that considers eating in the presence of others to be obscene, but sex in the presence of others to be totally acceptable. Looks like we’re headed that way.
One theory is that the Sucrase step influences the amount you consume. The body recognizes the sucrose as food. Sends a “stop eating or drinking” signal to the brain, the mouth. There is much we don’t know.
Tequila plant could help treat diabetes, osteoporosis
A link to the abstract can be found in comment# 1.
Except that fructose is the sweet that we’d be much, much, much more likely to encounter more of in the natural state. So it defies reason to treat fructose like its some sort of artificial, technocratic boogey-man in favor of sucrose.
The animal study claiming that fructose causes metabolic syndrome strikes me as a heaping pile of bull-—t, but keep in mind that the study did not find greater tendencies towards diabetes, or heart disease, or anything of the like. What it found that it labeled metabolic syndrome is the lipogenesis that is associated with those diseases developing later. Recent studies also suggest that lipogenesis may be a defense against symptoms which are caused by excess blood sugar, and is not harmful, but beneficial. If THAT’s true, then it’s easier to interpret that fructose triggers natural defenses against excess blood sugar more effectively that sucrose because its the sugar that we naturally would encounter in our diet more.
(Further support for lipogenesis as a defense against other disease comes from other studies which found that heavier-but-not-obese people live longer than thin people.
I was all set to switch from Crown Royal to Tequila, until I saw the disclaimer :>)
From comment# 93:
If you use 40 as the denominator, then there is 37.5 percent more fructose than glucose in HFCS-55.If you use 42 as the denominator, then there is 31 percent more fructose than glucose in HFCS-55.
Maybe the problem is that artificial, abnormal amount of fructose in HFCS-55, shifting the equilibrium in favor of more glycerol, and therefore more triglycerides. You can get glycerol from both fructose and glucose, but the fructose path uses one less enzyme.
A tremendous amount of chemicals are used in the creation of hfcs. Why was mercury found in hfcs?
In its natural state, fructose is almost always, if not always, accompanied by fiber. The fiber, apparently, delays the absorbion of fructose.
We don’t really know why, but we are finding more and more how different hfcs is from sugar. The recent Princeton study on rats is interesting. And more study is needed.
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.