Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="catsclaw227" data-source="post: 5566174" data-attributes="member: 14197">Umbran --I am not sure what your point is.  Are you saying that using high fructose corn (or agave) syrup as your your primary source of sweetener is OK?  Because it certainly is NOT.  And that was the point of my post.Fructose from fruit?  That's fine. Honey, or other pure sources of sweetener, these are OK too, in moderation.  Artificial sweeteners?  Bad idea.If you simply meant to say that HFCS isn't a death machine, well of course I agree.  I even said that a little of it is OK, just don't make it your primary source of sweets.If you recall in a <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/media-lounge-miscellaneous-geek-stuff/306098-promoting-healthier-geek-nerd-2.html#post5565523" target="_blank">previous post in this thread</a>, I quoted a fitness and nutrition expert, who didn't say HRCS was awful, but that it was not the same as frucotse straight from fruit.  He also said:The problem with HFCS is that it is not processed by our bodies in the same way as other sugars and tends to be more lipogenic (promotes fat storage). Also, your body doesn’t readily recognize the calories ingested from HFCS, so it does nothing to satisfy your appetite. The bottom line is, if you want to be lean and ripped, stay away from the empty calories of HFCS. Also, when I said "read the science" it was in the context of debunking the advertising around agave nectar.My quote, taken out of context, isn't very helpful to the readers.And your quote isn't a study. It was a speech at an annual meeting about a series of studies done in <s>the early 90s... in the world of food science that 15-20 years is a lifetime</s> (Correction below**). Here's a <a href="http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S26/91/22K07/index.xml?section=topstories" target="_blank">Princeton study from 2010</a>.And here's a nice tidbit from the end:"Our findings lend support to the theory that the excessive consumption of high-fructose corn syrup found in many beverages may be an important factor in the obesity epidemic," Avena said. The new research complements previous work led by Hoebel and Avena demonstrating that sucrose can be addictive, having effects on the brain similar to some drugs of abuse. In the future, the team intends to explore how the animals respond to the consumption of high-fructose corn syrup in conjunction with a high-fat diet -- the equivalent of a typical fast-food meal containing a hamburger, fries and soda -- and whether excessive high-fructose corn syrup consumption contributes to the diseases associated with obesity. Another step will be to study how fructose affects brain function in the control of appetite. Also, my wife is at Type I diabetic.  Sometimes she needs sugar if she is getting hypoglycemic. In emergency situation, the fastest, best way is straight glucose (sold as Glucose Tablets with 4g of fast-acting carbs).So, there is a place for glucose too.But when something is processed like HFCS is, your body doesn't know what to do with it, it's empty calories, and it can generate feelings of hunger afterwards and cause more weight gain.HFCS is produced by isomerizing most of the glucose in corn syrup to fructose and then mixing this syrup with varying amounts of corn-based glucose syrup. HFCS-55, consisting of 55% fructose and 42% glucose, is used primarily in sweetened beverages, whereas HFCS-42 (42% fructose; 53% glucose) is used primarily to sweeten other products (e.g., baked foods and confectionaries).So HFCS is almost half glucose anyway...To Quote <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mercola/sugar-may-be-bad-but-this_b_463655.html" target="_blank">Dr. Joseph Mercola</a>:Bottom line.... It isn't that glucose or fructose itself is bad -- it is the MASSIVE DOSES we're exposed to that make it dangerous. ** EDIT: I am sorry, the studies were done in early-mid 2000's.  But it notable that her own study done in 2007 (after that meeting) says: (Emphasis mine)  I think the long-term effects are much more important, and I look forward to reading these studies.</blockquote>

Verification