Since I promised to stay out of the other thread, but have been summoned

[Getting Traded]

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.

You're a cretin who doesn't understand human nature or the capitalist system, that people will do and say anything for money and that's the problem with American society today and people like you who support the lies foisted on us.

 

[LogGrad98]

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.

I thought galactose was the villain in the next avengers movie.

 

[One Brow]

You're a cretin who doesn't understand human nature or the capitalist system, that people will do and say anything for money and that's the problem with American society today and people like you who support the lies foisted on us.

As opposed to those nice people at mercola who make something like a 40% profit margin selling you whatever nonsense you are willing to buy? Again, I'm not worried about where I come out in that comparison.

 

[Getting Traded]

You're a cretin who doesn't understand human nature or the capitalist system, that people will do and say anything for money and that's the problem with American society today and people like you who support the lies foisted on us.

Mercola does make money but he is a sincere, honest person trying to educate ignoramuses like you who believe every word their dumb doctors say and everything big companies tells us. Well if you want to continue to live in your ignorance, that's your choice.

 

[Getting Traded]

As opposed to those nice people at mercola who make something like a 40% profit margin selling you whatever nonsense you are willing to buy? Again, I'm not worried about where I come out in that comparison.

How much of that HFCS snake oil report did you read. Did you notice who were used as sources? Experts in the field. A lot more credible than corporate lobbyists. You're such a dick trying to prove everything I put on here is wrong to feed your arrogant, self-absorbed know-it-all ego. I'm just trying to inform people, not trying to show how smart I am like you, you POS, or maybe I should say, Trump Turd, that's even more disgusting.

 

[Harambe]

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.

1. 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.
2. 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.
   
   
3. 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?
4. 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.
   
   
5. 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.

The real issues are only two.

• 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.

These critical ideas should be the heart of the national conversation, not the meaningless confusing ads and statements by the corn industry in the media and online that attempt to assure the public that the biochemistry of real sugar and industrially produced sugar from corn are the same.

If you eat too many calories, you will get fat. Sugar, regardless of the form, is energy. Refined from corn, or eaten straight, if you don't use that energy your body is going to store a healthy portion of it.

Sugars you get from two different plants aren't going to be identical. :| There's always going to be a variant.

I'm glad someone tested mercury levels, but I'm disappointed that you're trying to use one vat from one manufacturer as proof that every vat from every manufacturer does. I'm also disappointed that they resulted to fraud in obtaining their sample. Says a lot about the class of scientist.

Independent doesn't necessarily mean right or wrong by any any stretch of the imagination. Just that they're different.

HCFS is what it is; a different way to process sugar, and process it into state different than actual sugars. No ****, sherlock.

 

[Getting Traded]

If you eat too many calories, you will get fat. Sugar, regardless of the form, is energy. Refined from corn, or eaten straight, if you don't use that energy your body is going to store a healthy portion of it.

Sugars you get from two different plants aren't going to be identical. :| There's always going to be a variant.

I'm glad someone tested mercury levels, but I'm disappointed that you're trying to use one vat from one manufacturer as proof that every vat from every manufacturer does. I'm also disappointed that they resulted to fraud in obtaining their sample. Says a lot about the class of scientist.

Independent doesn't necessarily mean right or wrong by any any stretch of the imagination. Just that they're different.

HCFS is what it is; a different way to process sugar, and process it into state different than actual sugars. No ****, sherlock.

I didn't write that. It was written by Mark Hyman. But you read and processed that entire piece, am I correct, or just skimmed it?

 

[Harambe]

I didn't write that. It was written by Mark Hyman. But you read and processed that entire piece, am I correct, or just skimmed it?

I read what you posted. And with the data provided, I remain unconvinced any of that information confirms a meaningful problem that should dictate. I imagine this to be what it's like as a climate denier, only there's a helluva lot more science describing climate change than what your "physicians" are insinuating.

What level of informed consent do you think I should have to think you're too far off the rails?

 

[idestroyedthetoilet]

Read the Hyman report. He discusses this with two of the world's foremost experts on nutrition.

The only thing he CLAIMS is in HFCS the fructose and glucose aren't bound tightly like natural glucose-fructose. Of course that's total b.s., claiming the C-O-C covalent bonds are less tight, apparently because of some Archer Daniels Midland manufacturing magic that makes two physically identical molecules different.

Anyway, I dont think you can tell what or who you are arguing against at this point.

 

[One Brow]

How much of that HFCS snake oil report did you read.

The web link was all I could take.

Did you notice who were used as sources? Experts in the field. A lot more credible than corporate lobbyists.

I'll go with neither group. Instead, I'll trust the scientists who don't have a stake on either side.

You're such a dick trying to prove everything I put on here is wrong to feed your arrogant, self-absorbed know-it-all ego.

Well, aren't you sweet.

I'm just trying to inform people,

If that were true, why are so you upset that you are resorting to name-caling when it turns out you are wrong?

not trying to show how smart I am like you, you POS, or maybe I should say, Trump Turd, that's even more disgusting.

I take your insults with all the seriousness you have earned over the years.

 

[idestroyedthetoilet]

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.

I'm waiting for @Eenie-Meenie to explain why a corn-based food ingredient specifically needs to be tested for mercury, as opposed to every other foodstuff. If anything, manufacturing to selectively extract glucose-fructose from corn kernels would eliminate mercury and whatever other toxins (such as dioxins and furans) found in corn.

 

[One Brow]

Mercola does make money but he is a sincere, honest person ...

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!

Thank you for that laugh.

 

[One Brow]

I'm waiting for @Eenie-Meenie to explain why a corn-based food ingredient specifically needs to be tested for mercury, as opposed to every other foodstuff.

For some people, mercury in the food is the source of all evil. You wouldn't believe how much these quacks make in giving chelation therapies to remove all the supposed excess mercury. Or, maybe you would.

 

[idestroyedthetoilet]

If you eat too many calories, you will get fat. Sugar, regardless of the form, is energy. Refined from corn, or eaten straight, if you don't use that energy your body is going to store a healthy portion of it.

Sugars you get from two different plants aren't going to be identical. :| There's always going to be a variant.

I'm glad someone tested mercury levels, but I'm disappointed that you're trying to use one vat from one manufacturer as proof that every vat from every manufacturer does. I'm also disappointed that they resulted to fraud in obtaining their sample. Says a lot about the class of scientist.

Independent doesn't necessarily mean right or wrong by any any stretch of the imagination. Just that they're different.

HCFS is what it is; a different way to process sugar, and process it into state different than actual sugars. No ****, sherlock.

I'm willing to bet $ we could pick up any jar of corn syrup at a grocery store, have it tested for mercury at a certified lab, and there wouldn't be any mercury measurable above instrument baseline noise.

Actually, I might be a to contact a guy who used to run merc tests in an analytical lab I worked in. He used to test all sorts of stuff and would probably know.

 

[Getting Traded]

I'm willing to bet $ we could pick up any jar of corn syrup at a grocery store, have it tested for mercury at a certified lab, and there wouldn't be any mercury measurable above instrument baseline noise.

Actually, I might be a to contact a guy who used to run merc tests in an analytical lab I worked in. He used to test all sorts of stuff and would probably know.

Why don't you trust Dr. Hyman, he is far more authoritative than me. Check out his sources. Did you read the post on the link? Why are you so invested in trying to prove something I posted is wrong?

 

[Harambe]

I'm willing to bet $ we could pick up any jar of corn syrup at a grocery store, have it tested for mercury at a certified lab, and there wouldn't be any mercury measurable above instrument baseline noise.

Actually, I might be a to contact a guy who used to run merc tests in an analytical lab I worked in. He used to test all sorts of stuff and would probably know.

Sure! I'll start writing up letters to corn syrup manufacturers pretending to be a startup creating a next level vegan soda. How big do you think a vat is, excatly?

 

[Getting Traded]

I read what you posted. And with the data provided, I remain unconvinced any of that information confirms a meaningful problem that should dictate. I imagine this to be what it's like as a climate denier, only there's a helluva lot more science describing climate change than what your "physicians" are insinuating.

What level of informed consent do you think I should have to think you're too far off the rails?

Can you provide more specific detail? You talk in generalities here.

 

[Harambe]

Why don't you trust Dr. Hyman, he is far more authoritative than me. Check out his sources. Did you read the post on the link? Why are you so invested in trying to prove something I posted is wrong?

Why are the links he provides any more relevant than what a person can find on google scholar? Hyman's well known in his field... and not much of it's for something overly positive.

 

[Getting Traded]

Can you provide more specific detail? You talk in generalities here.

I guess you force me to do further more detailed research on this, and when I do, I'll get back to this topic because some of the comments related to chemistry I am not qualified to comment upon.

 

[Getting Traded]

Why are the links he provides any more relevant than what a person can find on google scholar? Hyman's well known in his field... and not much of it's for something overly positive.

Really, can you give me some links?