I suppose aspartame might be worse than sugar, in the same way water might be worse than a weak solution of acid or base. There's just no evidence that it is.
Since I promised to stay out of the other thread, but have been summoned
- Thread starter One Brow
- Start date
I suppose aspartame might be worse than sugar, in the same way water might be worse than a weak solution of acid or base. There's just no evidence that it is.
Your post was almost completely correct. There are three basic simple sugars (glucose, fructose, and galactose). Glucose is usable immediately, galactose converts quickly to glucose, and fructose takes a little more time and effort to convert to glucose, but not enough more time to base any long-term health decisions on it.
If you eat X number of calories of sugar, it will reliably have the same effects, regardless of the form of sugar which comprises those X calories.
Getting Traded
Banned
Research HFCS. It is not just sugar; it's a manufactured form of sugar and does have some bad side effects; some say it has contributed greatly to obesity. Ok, so the FDA says no evidence it's worse than regular sugar, but I don't trust the FDA, for one. If you do, fine. Harvard Medical Journal says the juries out because there are studies showing people metabolize HFCS differently. I distrust establishment sources because most are funded or supported by industries with investment in the issue that the sources are reporting about.
Last edited:
All forms of sugar have bad side effects if you consume too much of them. HFCS has less fructose by percentage than an apple.
Getting Traded
Banned
It's an unnatural form of sugar.
Getting Traded
Banned
https://drhyman.com/blog/2011/05/13/5-reasons-high-fructose-corn-syrup-will-kill-you/
Dr. Mark Hyman was the Clintons' personal physicians and one of the leading functional doctors in the U.S. today
Dr. Mark Hyman was the Clintons' personal physicians and one of the leading functional doctors in the U.S. today
It's about 50% fructose and 50% glucose, which is the same as table sugar.
The word "unnatural" has no magic and doesn't do anything to harm a body.
idestroyedthetoilet
Well-Known Member
Is that why our bodies produce mass quantities of an enzyme that specifically breaks glucose and fructose? Or do we produce high quantities of a worthless enzyme just because we have DNA for it? Our bodies are transcribing every single gene, with no feedback mechanisms, pumping out RNA strands just because.
Getting Traded
Banned
Read the Hyman report on it before you start spouting off your ignorance.
Getting Traded
Banned
Read the Hyman report. He discusses this with two of the world's foremost experts on nutrition.
You'll fall for just about anything.
Agreed. Duh. No reason to specify HCFS.
55% is at the high end (it varies from 55% to 42%), but still less that the 57% of an apple.
The time to break up a glucose-fructose, or fructose-fructose bond, is biologically insignificant.
Yeah, that's believable. I did notice they did not run a similar scam on the makers of cane sugar or beet sugar, for control purposes.
They aren't fond of other types of sugar, either.
Same for any type of added sugar.
With a doctor that produces a lot of inconsistent and questionable conclusions, you should probably specify which one. The guy classifies alzheimers as type 3 diabetes... having a hard time taking him seriously.
The Hyman link you offered has already passed my threshold on slimy, snake-oil tactics for the day. I don't think I can take an additional report.
When you link to this stuff, do you really think it will somehow bolster your argument or make you look better? You fail at that, so consistently we could almost set a clock by it.
Getting Traded
Banned
I have to say you jump to conclusions very quickly based on a quick Google search of a topic. There is so much disinformation online because of the profit motive that you need to be more discriminating and not call people ignorant because their opinion doesn't jive with what comes up first on Google. I've read numerous articles warning about high fructose corn syrup. Why do you think some companies put labels on their products "No High Fructose Corn Syrup"? This has been going on for a number of years now. But I guess you don't agree with the organic foods movement but accept what companies like Monsanto feed you.
Getting Traded
Banned
The one that I linked to.
Getting Traded
Banned
What an ignorant pos you are. Let other people who are interested make up their own mind.
Here are 5 reasons you should stay way from any product containing high fructose corn syrup and why it may kill you.
- Sugar in any form causes obesity and disease when consumed in pharmacologic doses.Cane sugar and high fructose corn syrup are indeed both harmful when consumed in pharmacologic doses of 140 pounds per person per year.When one 20 ounce HFCS sweetened soda, sports drink, or tea has 17 teaspoons of sugar (and the average teenager often consumes two drinks a day) we are conducting a largely uncontrolled experiment on the human species.Our hunter gatherer ancestors consumed the equivalent of 20 teaspoons per year, not per day. In this sense, I would agree with the corn industry that sugar is sugar. Quantity matters. But there are some important differences.
- HFCS and cane sugar are NOT biochemically identical or processed the same way by the body. High fructose corn syrup is an industrial food product and far from “natural” or a naturally occurring substance. It is extracted from corn stalks through a process so secret that Archer Daniels Midland and Carghill would not allow the investigative journalist Michael Pollan to observe it for his book The Omnivore’s Dilemma. The sugars are extracted through a chemical enzymatic process resulting in a chemically and biologically novel compound called HFCS. Some basic biochemistry will help you understand this. Regular cane sugar (sucrose) is made of two-sugar molecules bound tightly together– glucose and fructose in equal amounts.The enzymes in your digestive tract must break down the sucrose into glucose and fructose, which are then absorbed into the body. HFCS also consists of glucose and fructose, not in a 50-50 ratio, but a 55-45 fructose to glucose ratio in an unbound form. Fructose is sweeter than glucose. And HFCS is cheaper than sugar because of the government farm bill corn subsidies. Products with HFCS are sweeter and cheaper than products made with cane sugar. This allowed for the average soda size to balloon from 8 ounces to 20 ounces with little financial costs to manufacturers but great human costs of increased obesity, diabetes, and chronic disease.Now back to biochemistry. Since there is there is no chemical bond between them, no digestion is required so they are more rapidly absorbed into your blood stream. Fructose goes right to the liver and triggers lipogenesis (the production of fats like triglycerides and cholesterol) this is why it is the major cause of liver damage in this country and causes a condition called “fatty liver” which affects 70 million people.The rapidly absorbed glucose triggers big spikes in insulin–our body’s major fat storage hormone. Both these features of HFCS lead to increased metabolic disturbances that drive increases in appetite, weight gain, diabetes, heart disease, cancer, dementia, and more.But there was one more thing I learned during lunch with Dr. Bruce Ames. Research done by his group at the Children’s Hospital Oakland Research Institute found that free fructose from HFCS requires more energy to be absorbed by the gut and soaks up two phosphorous molecules from ATP (our body’s energy source).
This depletes the energy fuel source, or ATP, in our gut required to maintain the integrity of our intestinal lining. Little “tight junctions” cement each intestinal cell together preventing food and bacteria from “leaking” across the intestinal membrane and triggering an immune reaction and body wide inflammation.
High doses of free fructose have been proven to literally punch holes in the intestinal lining allowing nasty byproducts of toxic gut bacteria and partially digested food proteins to enter your blood stream and trigger the inflammation that we know is at the root of obesity, diabetes, cancer, heart disease, dementia, and accelerated aging. Naturally occurring fructose in fruit is part of a complex of nutrients and fiber that doesn’t exhibit the same biological effects as the free high fructose doses found in “corn sugar”.
The takeaway: Cane sugar and the industrially produced, euphemistically named “corn sugar” are not biochemically or physiologically the same.
- HFCS contains contaminants including mercury that are not regulated or measured by the FDA. An FDA researcher asked corn producers to ship a barrel of high fructose corn syrup in order to test for contaminants. Her repeated requests were refused until she claimed she represented a newly created soft drink company. She was then promptly shipped a big vat of HFCS that was used as part of the study that showed that HFCS often contains toxic levels of mercury because of chlor-alkali products used in its manufacturing.(i) Poisoned sugar is certainly not “natural”.When HFCS is run through a chemical analyzer or a chromatograph, strange chemical peaks show up that are not glucose or fructose. What are they? Who knows? This certainly calls into question the purity of this processed form of super sugar. The exact nature, effects, and toxicity of these funny compounds have not been fully explained, but shouldn’t we be protected from the presence of untested chemical compounds in our food supply, especially when the contaminated food product comprises up to 15-20 percent of the average American’s daily calorie intake?
- Independent medical and nutrition experts DO NOT support the use of HFCS in our diet, despite the assertions of the corn industry. The corn industry’s happy looking websites www.cornsugar.com and www.sweetsurprise.com bolster their position that cane sugar and corn sugar are the same by quoting experts, or should we say misquoting … Barry M. Popkin, Ph.D., Professor, Department of Nutrition, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, has published widely on the dangers of sugar-sweetened drinks and their contribution to the obesity epidemic. In a review of HFCS in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition,(ii)he explains the mechanism by which the free fructose may contribute to obesity.He states that: “The digestion, absorption, and metabolism of fructose differ from those of glucose. Hepatic metabolism of fructose favors de novo lipogenesis (production of fat in the liver). In addition, unlike glucose, fructose does not stimulate insulin secretion or enhance leptin production. Because insulin and leptin act as key afferent signals in the regulation of food intake and body weight (to control appetite), this suggests that dietary fructose may contribute to increased energy intake and weight gain. Furthermore, calorically sweetened beverages may enhance caloric over-consumption.”He states that HFCS is absorbed more rapidly than regular sugar and that it doesn’t stimulate insulin or leptin production. This prevents you from triggering the body’s signals for being full and may lead to over-consumption of total calories. He concludes by saying that:“… the increase in consumption of HFCS has a temporal relation to the epidemic of obesity, and the overconsumption of HFCS in calorically sweetened beverages may play a role in the epidemic of obesity.”The corn industry takes his comments out of context to support their position. “All sugar you eat is the same.”
True pharmacologic doses of any kind of sugar are harmful, but the biochemistry of different kinds of sugar and their respective effects on absorption, appetite, and metabolism are different, and Dr. Popkin knows that.
David S. Ludwig, M.D., Ph.D., Associate Professor of Pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, and a personal friend, has published extensively on the dangers and the obesogenic properties of sugar-sweetened beverages.
He was quoted as saying that “high fructose corn syrup is one of the most misunderstood products in the food industry.” When I asked him why he supported the corn industry, he told me he didn’t and that his comments were taken totally out of context.
Misrepresenting science is one thing, misrepresenting scientists who have been at the forefront of the fight against obesity and high fructose sugar sweetened beverages is quite another.
- HFCS is almost always a marker of poor-quality, nutrient-poor disease-creating industrial food products or “food-like substances”. The last reason to avoid products that contain HFCS is that they are a marker for poor-quality, nutritionally-depleted, processed industrial food full of empty calories and artificial ingredients. If you find “high fructose corn syrup” on the label you can be sure it is not a whole, real, fresh food full of fiber, vitamins, minerals, phytonutrients, and antioxidants. Stay away if you want to stay healthy. We still must reduce our overall consumption of sugar, but with this one simple dietary change you can radically reduce your health risks and improve your health.While debate may rage about the biochemistry and physiology of cane sugar versus corn sugar, this is in fact beside the point (despite the finer points of my scientific analysis above). The conversation has been diverted to a simple assertion that cane sugar and corn sugar are not different.
- We are consuming HFCS and sugar in pharmacologic quantities never before experienced in human history–140 pounds a year versus 20 teaspoons a year 10,000 years ago.
- High fructose corn syrup is always found in very poor-quality foods that are nutritionally vacuous and filled with all sorts of other disease promoting compounds, fats, salt, chemicals, and even mercury.
Carmel Coloring call out:
https://badsciencedebunked.com/2015/09/10/trick-or-tweet-dr-mark-hyman-exposed/
Antivaccine/autism lollables
https://nodesci.net/blog/2015/07/15/dr-mark-hyman-misses-the-mark-on-autism/
I mean... he appeared on Doctor Oz. If there's a place you go to get air time when your ideas aren't taken seriously, it's hanging out with DocOz.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/c...bert-kennedy-jr-mark-hyman-appear-dr-oz-show/
Don't confuse this with we shouldn't consider. Simply accept that many, MANY educated others have considered, and simply did not come to the same conclusion.
https://badsciencedebunked.com/2015/09/10/trick-or-tweet-dr-mark-hyman-exposed/
Antivaccine/autism lollables
https://nodesci.net/blog/2015/07/15/dr-mark-hyman-misses-the-mark-on-autism/
I mean... he appeared on Doctor Oz. If there's a place you go to get air time when your ideas aren't taken seriously, it's hanging out with DocOz.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/c...bert-kennedy-jr-mark-hyman-appear-dr-oz-show/
Don't confuse this with we shouldn't consider. Simply accept that many, MANY educated others have considered, and simply did not come to the same conclusion.
Now I need a new irony meter; that one went up in a mushroom cloud. You think mercola doesn't make a profit hawking supplements, and that no one is paying Hyman for his consultations?
Because some of their customers get scared by nut-jobs like Hyman.
Whatever their faults, Monsanto has helped make it possible to feed the ever-increasing population. Organic food movements sell vanity food products to people scared by snake-oil salesmen. I know which of those sides I'm on.
I approve of everyone making up their own mind, including in the determination of which of us is the ignorant pos. My guess is you will be disappointed in the result.