Adam
I completely agree with almost everything you have said. And in particular your first line re complexity.
Two minor points though. Harriet Hall wasn't saying that apples contain 57% fructose, she was saying that the sugar content of apples is 57% fructose. She could have worded it better.
Also, the skeptics society is not out to prove everything wrong. They are out to prove, as far as is possible, real science over junk science. The people writing the blogs are only looking for truth, as compared to some of those who reply to the blog.
missing the point that the ratio of fructose to glucose in the American diet has not changed with the introduction of HFCS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by snas
Further, they acknowledged that while the sweetener level and type have changed over time, the fructose:glucose ratio in the U.S. food supply has remained the same for 50 y.
Its not about the ratio - its about the absolute amounts consumed. I haven't seen any arguments that relate to the ratio of glucose:fructose as being the culprit
Quote:
Originally Posted by snas
The bottom line is that HFCS is sugar. It is high calorie and has no other nutritional value other than as fuel. It should be consumed, like all sugars, in moderation. People should be aware that HFCS = sugar, and not be confused by this on food labeling.
Yes - fructose is a sugar. However it is very clear that it is used by the body in very different ways to glucose. There is no debate about the mechanisms of it's metabolism - just whether these pathways are responsible for chronic disease.
I agree with snas. This has to be approached with the usual sceptical attitude that defines the scientific method.
The simple precis of this video is
Fat is bad as it leads to fatness or obesity
Flog the punters 99% fat free food.
Hold on fat tastes nice. Let's replace it with a cheap source of sugar!
Do not tell the punters that sugar turns into fat. It gets burned off by pressing the remote!
I do not know about anyone else but a 1kg pack of sugar lasts about one month or more at my place for tea and coffee even with lots of visitors.
Lustig is simply saying that on average each american consumes 140+ lbs of 'added hidden sugar ' more per year than natural food will give you. This is almost one kg per week! This is an average!
The point of differentiating fructose vs glucose was made to stop any simple denialist reaction. Such as 'it is natural'. So is tiger snake venom!
Without pointing out the vast food company names, as we all know who they are, I will just simply say that the original post was only to bring awareness to a problem that is very obvious anywhere you look in our 'advanced society'.
Only you and your doctor can really work out what you should do.
If you watch the video Lustig has a few simple rules for the overweight children he is treating.
Only drink water and pure milk.
Lots of fresh fruit and vegetables. Yes with fructose!
TV or internet time can only be earned by exercising for the same amount of time.
Sound sensible to me.
Excuse me while I go out and run around the backyard as my time has expired.
There is a similar industry wanting to expand its economics situation in the soy industry. In the US a successful ad campaign made many Americans believe drinking soy milk etc was good for their health. I see the same ad campaign here.
Asians always ate fermented soy not unfermented. So you can't say its good for you because Asians are healthier and they eat soy whilst promoting unfermented soy.
Additionally Genetically Modified Soy is mentioned in this article. That is a whole topic in itself.
The "diet" industry is a multi billion dollar goldmine. All sorts of charletons want a piece of the action. All they need is a good catchy advertising campaign and a supply of gullible people.
The human digestive tract is capable of turning just about any fuel that contains carbohydrates into the energy required to live. The bodies bio system has a wealth of repair mechanisms that have been acquired as necessary or can be developed to combat all sorts of problems.
The ony way to get fat is to eat more than is required to sustain the system. Problems arise here from hereditary problems that were acquired to handle irregular diets that tend to store fuel in the body as fat to sustain the system in times of famine. Not everyone has this problem so some can eat as much as they like and not store fat. The surplus is just discharged as waste.
Sugar is just another carbohydrate that works great as fuel and if you let the body tell you by your palate you will know when you are eating too much of it.
Gee I love sugar by the spoonful.
Three heaped in my coffee
Love to eat lollies
Buy canned drinks by the carton
add extra sugar to many foods
Why don't I get fat. Why don't I have diabeties
However I am not sure about my brain. I don't think it is addled yet but other may not agree.
Barry
PS I do get regular medicals and a blood test every 6 months
Barry I smoke a packet of White Ox a day and drink far too much beer. I always try to eat fresh food. Last time I went for a medical my numbers all looked very good. Not because of my lifestyle but in spite of it. Some of us are gifted genetically to be almost immune from the ravages of self abuse. The medico had never seen such a low cholesterol reading (3.2) with such a high ratio of good to bad. He suggested a second test as the result could be flawed. It was not. There is also very strong component that also contributes such as your environment whilst growing up. We are talking about diet and exercise here, not how nice your suburb was. Your mental attitude to life is also a major factor.
There is just no simple answer for all of us. The real point is, one should have control over what one eats and not be fooled by any unknown additive that makes our decisions as to what we eat almost meaningless.
Barry I smoke a packet of White Ox a day and drink far too much beer. I always try to eat fresh food. Last time I went for a medical my numbers all looked very good. Not because of my lifestyle but in spite of it. Some of us are gifted genetically to be almost immune from the ravages of self abuse. The medico had never seen such a low cholesterol reading (3.2) with such a high ratio of good to bad. He suggested a second test as the result could be flawed. It was not. There is also very strong component that also contributes such as your environment whilst growing up. We are talking about diet and exercise here, not how nice your suburb was. Your mental attitude to life is also a major factor.
There is just no simple answer for all of us. The real point is, one should have control over what one eats and not be fooled by any unknown additive that makes our decisions as to what we eat almost meaningless.
Bert
Hi Bert
Yes some of us had the right parentage. However when I was young there weren't a great deal of obese people (food rationing). But our meals were prepared in the old home cooked style without modern trimmings. We drank water out of the tap. Milk (unpasturised) that came in a can from real cows (with added water if the milkman was running low), etc. Sugar was rationed also but we always had plenty. three spoons in your tea (coffee was not drunk by refined people). Breakfast cereals drowned in milk and about three desert spoons of sugar.
We never had cars, walked everywhere played footy, cricket etc. Never did any homework because it interfered with recreation time. When we got to about 12/13 we were allowed to save up for a pushbike. I came off mine at speed many times never wore protective gear and only got grazes. This of course did terrible damage to clothes that resulted in punishment worse than the pain of grazes.
My cholesterol reading is 6.2 so the doctor makes me take some garbage. This I do to keep him happy. This drops it to 4.9 but I doubt if it is that important my parents never did anything about cholesterol and it probably helped cause their demise in their late nineties, like most of the rest of my relations. Only my great aunt made it past 100. She got to 104
I don't smoke and drink very little. But The money I save goes on other vices like telescopes, mounts, cameras etc.
Gee I do rave on. Maybe I do have brain damage.
Barry
Last edited by Barrykgerdes; 19-01-2012 at 03:17 PM.
If you are doubting your sanity you are fine Barry!
The fondest memory I have of moving to Eltham in 1959 was that we used to get milk still warm straight from the cow just down the road. We used to pour it on our weetbix or make porridge. This practice is fine as long as the cow is healthy.
This milk was full cream and my mother used to take off the cream and make butter with it.
As time went on we had to make do with bottled milk.
The abomination now that passes for milk is the best we can get.
a bit off topic but about street fooball. This was a game played in the street (up to a kilometer long) It was started about the middle and the idea was to kick the ball as far as possible and make your oponent chase it because he had to return the kick from there. Catching on the full gave you a three yard bonus. It was called "forcings back" The game would end if you got called to tea or ran out of street.
I'm having great difficulty keeping down the 1.23kg of snapper or 1.1 kg of tuna I need to eat every day to stay alive. Should I bail out and take 9 standard fish oil tablets, or the yummy spoonful of Omega 3 fish oil? This is obviously a life and death matter or it wouldn't be on the tellie - all advice gratefully received.
re your message as follows "The fondest memory I have of moving to Eltham in 1959 was that we used to get milk still warm straight from the cow just down the road. We used to pour it on our weetbix or make porridge. This practice is fine as long as the cow is healthy."
In 1990 and 1991 I went to work in England. (I am assuming that the Eltham you are talking about was the one in southeast London, although I have just discovered that there is one in Victoria too, so maybe that's where you grew up). I was working as a vet in Sidcup. I was called out to a "farm" in Eltham. The farm was several acres in size and had been much larger once. It belonged to a Dr Bush and his wife, the parents of Kate Bush. Mrs Bush (sorry, forgotten her first name) was almost a dead ringer for Kate.
I'd hate to think what several acres in Eltham in London would be worth.
Makes sense to me. If your blood sugar levels are stable your body will not discard the excess energy source but will store it in a more compact form eg triglyerides or fat if you like. Much of the obesity problem we see stem from our own evolution. Some people are much better at storing fat than others and in times past this would have been an advantage during times of famine, the fat lived, the skinny died. Still the amount of extra sugar stuffed into many modern food stuffs is obscene and at the rate we consume the junk and generally sit on our RS's it is little wonder we are all getting on the heavy side. 1Kg of raw sugar would last 5 years here.
Stuart it was Eltham Victoria Australia. I live there still. You should see what my block in Eltham is worth compared to what I paid for it in 1976. When I croak the house and observatory will be bulldozed and four or five tacky townhouses will be squeezed onto my corner block. Hopefully all my astro gear would have been removed.
so a perfect ripe apricot , with natures Suger in her is bad for you ???
OUCH wrong ,, It is what they are feeding the trees that grow this fruit , that is the problem, ask the Chicken's ., Our 12 year old's are what ? ...
Ask the chicken farmers ...
Brian.
so a perfect ripe apricot , with natures Suger in her is bad for you ???
Not in that form, no. It comes packaged with fibre and water and other micronutrients. In the form of a piece of fruit, it is almost impossible to take in too much fructose in one sitting. So don't stop eating fruit.
From an evolutionary perspective, humans would not have had access to a never-ending supply of fructose, but it is a very good source of energy, so our bodies became very efficient at extracting it from the foods we eat. Nowadays people are more or less drip-fed fructose from first thing in the morning to last thing at night, and it is possible that this is at least partly responsible for some long-term health issues.
Sorry to bring up the sugar thing again, but I had a look on a packet of cornies and a packet of Special K. Kellogs advertises Special K as being "good for your waist line". So how come Special K contains twice as much sugar and twice as much fat as cornies???
I'd have to back up most of what Adam has argued here. We've had a couple of plenary lectures on fructose and urate over the last few years at Australian clinical biochemistry conferences. People are complex systems so always difficult to isolate individual causative factors without lots of peer reviewed research. In general, glucose is the sugar our bodies can most effeciently burn. Every sucrose molecule however consists of one glucose and one fructose molecule. Metabolically our bodies can't do anything with fructose until its transformed in some way - that means a trip to the liver for a re-arrangement of the fructose or simply shunting it off to fat stores if your body already has plenty of energy. All this activity messes with other metabolic activities.
Anyway, enough gross generalisation - the issue these researchers are flagging is indeed the excess of fructose we consume in foods which are historically speaking unusually rich in fructose - fruit drinks, sugar in foods, HFCS in many processed foods (which also tend to include excessive salt levels to fight blandness).
I'm hungry talking about this. I wish I hadn't eaten the last of the ice-cream last night.
The French seem to have it pretty right actually - lots of walking to public transport or bikes, not afraid to eat stacks of yummy sweet things, but in moderation. I was amazed how few obese people I saw in the streets of Paris last year (excepting American tourists of course). It's surprising with all the yummy bread, patisseries, cheese and wine they gobble, albeit in moderation. There's hope for us food hedonists after all.
.
