Yeah, you might have skipped the important part: Also, saying that a journal article is 20 years old is pretty weak. The real question is can you refute the findings? If you can't, it doesn't matter if it was published in 1893; it stands. Lastly, you seem to be missing the point. You said a simple carb is a simple carb. That is not true. The health benefits may not be drastically in favor of one over the other, but the two sugars - while chemically similar - are metabolized differently. This is irrefutable. They are not the same.
Youre saying they are metabolized differently, when the article you link clearly states It has a sample size of 32, over 10 weeks. Thats 16 people per control group. The sample size is absolutely laughable, as is the time frame. The study goes on to say So for 80% of the study, the patients were able to eat 75% of ANYTHING they want. That makes those findings absolute dogshit The researcher who even conducted that study even clearly states And goes on to say And your other study (the 20 year old one) even clearly states that they use unrealistically high levels of the substances, IN RATS. It would be odd how a 20 year old study can prove something, that most scientist today seem to say (including those in your webmd article) that there is no scientific evidence to support.
I absolutely think sugar is sugar. Are you telling me that if you buy a coca-cola made in the usa with HFCS that has say 200 calories and 50g of sugar (from hfcs) that its less healthy than the same drink made in europe made with cane sugar, that has 200 calories and 50g of sugar (from cane sugar)? Im not suggesting that a baked potato with 50g of carbohydrates is equal to a can of coke, since the potato has fiber/vitamins/minerals/complex carbohydrates. But there is no scientific evidence that suggest that cane sugar or hfcs or any of that shit substituded for each other has any magic differences. If someone finds me a LEGIT study (not that garbage from webmd with 16 people eating anything they want, or some study from the cold war done on rats where theyre pumped with physiologically unattainable amounts of sugar) I wouldnt deny it. But garbage perpetuation a myth since the American people want to blame the corn farms for them being fat disgusting slobs is a joke. People are fat disgusting slobs because they have no control, not some secret conspiracy by the corn industry.
I was thinking the same thing. How could someone get so over the top pissed off about something like this? Corn is a yummy side dish. It is no longer a part of our daily subsistence. Let it go. And if the government does the same I'll throw a party. Gee... Why are you seeing so many soft drinks coming out with throwback actual sugar in them? Gee... Why are there twice as many fat people now in the US since HFCS replaced natural sugar? Go figure.
He can just google journal articles for fructose metabolism if he wants to learn that fructose is metabolized differently than glucose. Debate the health benefits/risks if you want, but let's not pretend the body handles them the same way. They're hyrdolyzed by different enzymes; that is proof enough.
Wat How about this Whats the average daily caloric intake now, and compare it to when products had natural sugar. Americans are fatter now than any time in the history of this country, because... Americans are taking in more calories now than any time ever in the history of our country. This has to do with money, fast food, the cost of food decreasing, processing foods (stripping them of fiber etc making them less filling), but the greatest thing is simply people eating more calories. PERIOD
Well of course theyre not metabolized the same, after all fructose gets turned into... GLUCOSE. You however dont have to turn glucose into glucose. I did ( at least I think I did) mention that the insulin response will likely differ, but ultimately at the end of the day 200g of HFCS is nutritionally no different for you than cane sugar. That was my point, and im stickin to it !
Not always. Which was my point. It's preferentially metabolized into fatty acids. Moreso than glucose. And you also said that insulin response only matters for diabetics. This is patently false. This is far from clear.
That is pure bullshit. I know many people who have just done small things and lost weight and kept it off. A friend of mine only quit drinking soda and lost 14 pounds right away and kept it off.
Sugar is NOT sugar. All sweeteners have different levels of glucose and affect your body in different ways. From what I have read, Agave is even worse than HFCS which is ironic because health nuts think they are cool and healthy using it instead of sugar.
Here is the problem no two people are the same. I can drop weight and eat shity as long as I work out. I have friends that eat a lot stricter then I do and work out the same and can’t lose a pound. It is also a fact it’s harder for Women to lose weight cause they carry more body fat them men. Just cause something works for one person don’t mean it’s going to work for all. I think DCM might work for Monsanto lol.
As I said in my next post, I meant that it won't do anything if they don't make it a permanent change and return back to their old diet.
Quitting soda is a pretty big change, especially if they're drinking enough that quitting causes them to lose 14 pounds right away (this is like 332 servings of soda in calories) I would think a small change is like eatting your tunafish on whole wheat instead of white bread, or replacing potato chips at lunch with almonds.
I used this app called "my fitness pal" and entered in my info and it gives you a nutritional plan to follow. It's really handy because it allows you to enter in your meals or even scan the barcode with the phone and all the nutritional info is entered and updated. Just following this, I lost 30 pounds in a about 4 months with only about 2 hours of exercise a week and I have kept it off so far.
Holy shit, has this really degenerated into a debate on HFCS? Someone please fine me a study that finds that HFCS is uniquely obesity promoting instead of sucrose (table sugar). HFCS is 55% fructose and 45% glucose. Sucrose is 50% fructose and 50% glucose. You really think that 5% swing makes a difference??? And yes, fructose is broken down by the liver and stored as liver glcogen as opposed to being stored as muscle glycogen like glucose. And yes, studies in rats fed a RETARDED amount of fructose developed a lot of visceral fat. Good thing I don't eat 600g of fructose a day and I'm also not a rat. Bottom line is don't drink sweetened beverages at all. Sucrose and HFCS will both make you fat thru the magic of calories!
lol it's like going to Burger king every day ordering double woppers and blaming it on the diet coke.
That's exaggerating the scope of the discussion, and the positions of the debate. It's a matter of degrees. I wouldn't "blame" HFCS as the sole cause of obesity, but it's ridiculous to say that it's exactly the same as though it's a given. It's not. People are throwing around "facts" like they have definitive answers, when the fields of nutrition and biochemistry have been rapidly redefining what was previously "known." The human body is a pretty adaptable machine, but the biochemical pathways involved in metabolizing different sugars are rather complicated and the long-term implications of one kind of sugar over the other are not definitively known. What is definitively known: -Glucose and fructose are metabolized differently. -Fructose in HFCS is a free molecule and does not enter the glycolytic pathway. -Fructose in sucrose is bound to glucose in a dimer and requires an additional metabolic step before being utilized. -Small modifications in environment can cause large phenotypic changes (e.g. a small, but persistent long-term increase of a certain type of sugar in the body) The bottom line is that it, no, it doesn't really matter which type of sugar you take in if your sugar intake is already very high to begin with. That doesn't mean they're the exact same thing.
