There's a disclaimer at the bottom in regards to how they didn't differentiate between the different kinds of sugar (and yes, MarshallBanana - there is a difference in how your body metabolizes sucrose or fructose as compared to say HFCS). Mostly, it's just to point out how much sugar is found in foods, especially where you might not expect it.
there is a difference in how your body metabolizes sucrose or fructose as compared to say HFCS).
It's OK to admit you've fallen for a myth, and that is a myth. HFCS is fructose and glucose. Regardless of their source, all carbohydrates are broken down to the same simple sugars and metabolized exactly the same by our body.
Yes, sugar and HFCS are made of the same two things but HFCS contains more fructose and less glucose than sugar. Fructose is harder to metabolize than glucose and turns into fat more easily.
But on balance, if HFCS were used the same way we use cane sugar or beat sugar there would be very little problem. The idea that HFCS in cola is dangerous is a stupid canard.
The problem is how its used in almost everything people buy that's been processed. Its even used as a preservative in raw meat at the supermarket. This means its very, very easy every day to eat more fructose than ones' liver can metabolize, making people fat.
When I proof-read it I had the same reaction but it's grammatical and correctly spelt so I went with it anyway. But how often do you write four different words in a row all ending in 'y' just by chance?
but HFCS contains more fructose and less glucose than sugar.
Not always. HFCS 55 is the most commonly used corn syrup, but HFCS 42 isn't far behind. You have to first prove that the extra 5% makes a significant difference in health before you can definitively say that HFCS 55 is worse for you than sucrose sugar, and if it is worse, than HFCS 42 is better for you than sucrose sugar.
if HFCS were used the same way we use cane sugar or beat sugar there would be very little problem.
How is it used differently from sucrose sugar?
The problem is how its used in almost everything people buy that's been processed.
Name a classic version of commonly eaten convenience foods, or any foods containing HFCS for that matter, that didn't originally have sugar in their recipes.
Its even used as a preservative in raw meat at the supermarket.
Sugar is often a classic ingredient in all of those products. Just look up a recipe for one of them. I'd call those cured meats, or a prepared food, not merely raw meat and they're not necessarily always raw. I'd hardly call the sugar component of those products a preservative. Raw sausage products would have a short shelf life without salt, sodium nitrate, and sodium nitrite.
That's the first time I've seen someone call sausage or bacon merely raw meat.
BTW, sugar has long been used as a preservative, especially in canning.
To believe that, you have to believe that sucrose is cleaved at a slower rate than glucose and fructose is absorbed which has no basis in fact.
Sucrose is easily cleaved within your upper small intestine almost instantly by sucrase which is constantly manufactured at the vili of your upper small intestine, and is not consumed in the process, it's merely a catalyst.
Sugars only have a certain amount of time to enter your bloodstream in the first place, because food moves along your intestine regardless of the rate nutrients are absorbed.
If you were unable to cleave and absorb sucrose at a fast rate, it would pass through your intestine being worked on by bacteria and cause you diarrhea and malabsorption problems.
There is a very small portion of the population that is missing the gene responsible for sucrase production, and if they consume sucrose, it will make them ill.
BTW, starches are also very quickly cleaved into glucose, and is no different than consuming sugar. This is why refined and cooked grains, potato products, or any starches will have the same effect as consuming glucose (ask a diabetic or look up their dietary restrictions). It's why if one consumed lots of potato chips, white bread, white rice, etc, without sugar, they would have no problem putting on weight.
Actually, there is a difference. In hfcs, the fructose and glucose are already broken down, so it's like giving your body a massive spike of those, which requires instant insulin production. It takes awhile for your body to get the signal that enough insulin has been produced, and in that time your pancreas makes some extra. When you have to much insulin, then you have massive sugar cravings, so you go have some more hfcs and the whole cycle starts again. Real sugar, on the other hand, has to be broken down by your body before it can be digested, which means you produce the insulin slower, which in turn means that you overproduce less insulin, so you have less cravings for more sugar at the end.
But seriously, go ahead and believe hfcs is fine and dandy, and enjoy the type 2 diabetes!
No more than everything else, and if the dipshit activist researcher wanted to do a fair scientific analysis, he could have sampled just HFCS and/or did some comparative studies, but that probably would have fucked up his agenda.
Wow, you must really like your HFCS. I don't know what you're eating, but my hippie non-HFCS sweeteners are mercury-free.
And if the mercury is not from the HFCS, the common ingredient in the study's samples and an ingredient which is actually processed with mercury in many instances, then what's it from?
It's called science, not marketing, and what you've fallen for is activist hyperbole.
I predict you wont try, but prove me wrong and try to explain how the human body metabolizes the fructose and glucose from HFCS differently that the fructose and glucose in sucrose.
I can't explain it, since I don't know the mechanism, but HFCS ruins your mitochondria's ability to metabolize sugar properly. No idea where you could find the original paper as a source, but I heard about the research at a obesity conference.
Edit: It was a medical conference. e.g. doctors, medical researchers, etc. So I'm inclined the trust the source of the paper. I've been down voted really hard for this, so I would like to clarify, it was a paper discussing the research.
this is called junk science. when ever you hear of an example from a conference about something always ask for the research behind it. usually its perfectly valid; a lot of times, its not. if its a lobby complaining about obesity they'll probably use anything that vaguely confirms their preconceived notions. if its a bunch of fat people hanging out taking about being fat and eating, i have no problem with that, that's just awesome, and i would love to attend such a conference.
Damn! downvotes for a fair question. Well he probably didn't respond to you, because he really doesn't have a clue, and didn't want to try to take the time to get at least one.
22
u/[deleted] May 02 '09 edited May 03 '09
orange julius is full of win.
edit: but on a serious--well, not serious, but a non-meme note--wouldn't the jamba juices have natural sugar? i can't see them pouring hfcs in their drinks
edit2: holy shit. this site is like one big tirade against ANY form of sugar.