View Single Post
  #20  
Old 15-01-2012, 11:33 AM
adman (Adam)
Seriously Amateur

adman is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 1,279
The whole problem lies with the complexity of the problem. This is not something that the average layperson without some grounding in biochemistry and physiology can understand. But that is exactly who 99.9% (figure plucked unashamedly from mid-air ) of people who are comsuming these foods are. I have a reasonable grounding in both biochemistry and physiology - but it is still not enough to tell me which of these groups to believe.

I guess I am going with my gut instinct on this - and I know that is not good science, but without doing further study, or conducting some of the research myself - its the best I've got. My gut instint is derived from the following:

Professor Lustig is one man with his considerable professional reputation and credibility on the line, and I am guessing that he would not use words like 'poison' lightly. The pathways that he laid out are well known, and he makes a good case for his claims. But again who is to tell who is right - but I think that over the course of time the evidence will come down on the side of Lustig and co.

The other big reason I believe he is right is that there are a lot of people making a lot of money out of fructose. Its big business. And reasons they use it is because it is cheaper, and the more they put in, the more people buy of their products. It is not because it is better for you, or does you no harm over the long or short terms. It is simply to make more money. Now, where someone is making a big pile of cash out of something, and they are telling us "its fine, this stuff is safe as houses" it sounds a little to much like the tobacco companies for my liking, and makes me wary.

Now, nowhere in any of the recommendations regarding fructose does anyone advocate stopping eating fruit. Lustig says that the good thing about fruit is that it comes packaged with fibre which acts to limit your intake and provides you with an essential nutrient (not quite the right word, but cant think of a better one...). Think about a glass of fruit juice - contains the fructose of about 8-10 oranges. Nobody is going to sit down and eat 8-10 oranges, but I have certainly had 2 glasses of juice before - 20 oranges worth.

As for the lady from the Skeptics Society - I don't really care whether she is a doctor or not. I know some pretty dodgy doctors - it is not automatically an indication of propriety or impartiality. The fact that she is a member of the Skeptics actually detracts from her credibility in my opinion. The Skeptics reason for existence is to doubt the claims of others - it says it right there on the tin! They need something to doubt, otherwise they are worthless.

She says that HFCS is 'not that high' and compares the percentages of various foodstuffs, such as apples to it. It is NOT about the percentages, it is about the actual quantities consumed. Nobody is eating 140lb of honey in a year (I hope) - but that is the quantity of fructose that westerners (and many other cultures) are getting.

Apples by the way are not 55% fructose. They contain only 10% carbohydrate, about 85% water and a few other bits like fibre etc. Of the 10% - say maximum half of that is fructose 5% (although looking up the actual figure - it was more like 1.5% by weight fructose). If you eat 3 apples a day say 100g each - gives somewhere between 5 and 15g fructose a day - about 1.5 to 5kg a year - a far cry from the totals that Lustig is talking about.

Adam
Reply With Quote