View Single Post
  #12  
Old 14-01-2012, 03:55 PM
adman (Adam)
Seriously Amateur

adman is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 1,279
fructose is no longer recommended to diabetics as an alternative sweetener due to the effect is=t can have of raising serum triglyceride and LDL levels, and high fructose intakes may be partly the cause of obesity, type 2 diabetes and heart disease.



Adam

Quote:
Originally Posted by snas View Post
Here is some information from a reputable source.

http://www.nutritionaustralia.org/na...tions/fructose

Just beware of the name of the institution involved here at the beginning of the youtube video: the Osher Centre for INTEGRATIVE MEDICINE.

So called "Integrative medicine" is a combination of genuine "real science" medicine and unproven pseudoscientific alternative therapies. Integrative medicine is a "nice" way of saying we have some real doctors and scientists here who have gone across to the dark side of pseudoscience and believe that quackery such as Reiki, homeopathy etc are valid treatments. In other words, integrative medicine is quackery mixed up with a small amount of real medicine to try to give the quackery a degree of credence that it does not deserve in any way. Remember that alternative medicine is alternative because there is no scientific evidence that it works. If an alternative medicine is found to be truly effective, it ceases to be alternative and becomes conventional medicine.

This does not prove that Dr Lustig is a quack, although his association with an institution of integrative medicine raises concerns.

While I am not claiming to be an "expert", I can say that fructose is regarded as being a suitable sugar for diabetics to consume due to its low GI of 19. This is the lowest GI of any naturally occurring sugar. Low GI is defined as <55. Also, since fructose is much sweeter than sucrose or glucose, diabetics can use less fructose to provide the same degree of sweetening than if they used sucrose or glucose.

I respect the people on this site, the vast majority of whom know far more about astronomy than I. But I suspect that this youtube video has fooled some of our members (no disrespect) who maybe have less knowledge of biology that I do. (no disrespect there either, biology is my job)

Should the information in the video ever be proven to be true, I will happily say that I was wrong. At this time the "real" science says that will not be the case.

Regards

Stuart
Reply With Quote