Science vs the Fructose/HFCS Conspiracy

Nutrition
21

[quote]honkie wrote:

Wouldn’t all the references in the book be a good place to start.

Also knowing the actual history behind GMO would also serve it’s place in your investigation.

In google aline you can pull up a ton of studies including Monsanto’s own studies showing dangers yet they chose to ignore.

Something I can’t understand though. If you are a dietitian then why would you support something that you have not fully studied. Are you just as bad as those you attempt to discredit for the same reason? This is a real question and not a personal attack.[/quote]

How many references are there in the book? ALL of them probably wouldn’t be a good place to start - which is why asked for some key ones - summary papers or something over-arching to start as an introduction. If you wanted to learn about TVA research, I wouldn’t suggest that you start with ALL of the references from Therapeutic Exercise for Lumbo-pelvic Stabilisation - it has over 500. I appreciate the advice, just need a slightly more practical place to start.

What is it that you think I am supporting? GMO? I didn’t make any statement about GM foods at any point(although I did enjoy the Penn and Teller Bullshit story on it :wink:

22

[quote]staticx wrote:
David Driscoll I’m afraid you might be coming across as just another attention seeker, and reading another forum you resort to name calling when challenged on your views.This Speaks volumes you know despite all your sports/health accreditations calling people names and avoiding the GMO issue when asked goes down in my books as highly unprofessional.[/quote]

Fair point, but the name calling started after the poster suggested that I read the research on HFCS vs sucrose. When I asked where, they said biochemistry textbooks - I said I had two in which I couldn’t find anything - the response was, it is in there you just don’t understand it and wouldn’t provide any more info, so it was more an exercise in frustration. I just felt that I had called the posters bluff in terms of telling me to read the research that they then couldn’t present (I’d quoted a few studies up until that point), but was honestly looking for a counter-point if one was available.

So it wasn’t when I was challenged, it was when the person couldn’t deliver on their “science” but I take the point on name-calling.

Not sure where you get that I avoided the GMO question, I thought it was a distraction from the simple question I had asked.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts

23

[quote]supertrain-int wrote:

[quote]debraD wrote:

I liked this video. It’s a long video but worth the watch IMO.[/quote]

This is the guy that Alan Aragon took apart
[/quote]

Last time I checked Alan was not a MD nor has any research experience.

24

[quote]supertrain-int wrote:

[quote]honkie wrote:
Posted at another forum

"Sucrose is made up of 50/50 fructose/glucose where as HFCS is around 55% fructose and 45% glucose.

Sucrose is made from cane sugar or beet sugar where as HFCS is a combination of corn syrup that has undergone enzymatic processing and pure corn syrup.

Fructose molecules in high-fructose corn syrup are free and unbound where as fructose molecule in sucrose is bound to a corresponding glucose molecule."

I think this answers some of the questions in regards to the differences between sucrose and HFCS when you had stated they were almost identical. [/quote]

Thanks for response and the effort of finding the resource, I understand the difference in the initial product, but the science suggests that once the sucrase enzyme splits sucrose into glucose and fructose - it is essentially the same, and thus by the time it is absorbed into the body - it is basically the same. http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/443/csaph3a08-summary.pdf
[/quote]

The means by which HFCS is break down and absorb differs in process thus creating a different effect in the body. I thought anyone with a chemistry background would know this?

25

[quote]honkie wrote:
The means by which HFCS is break down and absorb differs in process thus creating a different effect in the body. I thought anyone with a chemistry background would know this?
[/quote]

Breakdown and absorbtion aren’t the same thing. When sucrose gets to the absorption stage, it has been broken down into glucose and fructose and thus is the same as the HFCS. Again, by the time that they are ready for absorption into the small intestine, they are ALL now monosaccharides!

In case you weren’t aware, here in Australia, where we have a similarly obscene obesity problem - there is no HFCS, just sucrose in most products!

26

[quote]supertrain-int wrote:

[quote]honkie wrote:
The means by which HFCS is break down and absorb differs in process thus creating a different effect in the body. I thought anyone with a chemistry background would know this?
[/quote]

Breakdown and absorbtion aren’t the same thing. When sucrose gets to the absorption stage, it has been broken down into glucose and fructose and thus is the same as the HFCS. Again, by the time that they are ready for absorption into the small intestine, they are ALL now monosaccharides!

In case you weren’t aware, here in Australia, where we have a similarly obscene obesity problem - there is no HFCS, just sucrose in most products!
[/quote]

Your assumptions are wrong about the process in which HFCS goes through is the same as sucrose. I will post the studies latter as heading out for brunch (organic restaurant of cause).

As far as obesity in Australia you first need to discount the Aborigines from that total as they been forced to shift so far off their natural diet, they are malnourished, and mistreated in the most part.

Now discussing this rest of the population it’s more than likely it’s too much carbs in general, in particular wheat products. You see lines around the corner in the mornings at certain brands of donut shops. We have seen an increase in diabetes, high blood pressure, elevated blood lipids, altered hormonal profiles. Consumption of sugar in Australia is greater than even the US per capita.

Even more and more of the local beef is grain fed not because of cheaper farming practices but because of the droughts throughout Australia that has forced more grain fed farming practices.

More on this latter - have to run.

27

[quote]supertrain-int wrote:

[quote]debraD wrote:

I liked this video. It’s a long video but worth the watch IMO.[/quote]

This is the guy that Alan Aragon took apart

[/quote]

I don’t even know who that is. How about you take it him apart. I’m open minded :slight_smile:

28

[quote]debraD wrote:

[quote]supertrain-int wrote:

[quote]debraD wrote:

I liked this video. It’s a long video but worth the watch IMO.[/quote]

This is the guy that Alan Aragon took apart

[/quote]

I don’t even know who that is. How about you take it him apart. I’m open minded :slight_smile:
[/quote]

Two rebuttal articles by Alan Aragon. Dr. Lustig even chimes in in the comments section.

MD or not, Aragon brings up some interesting issues. I think it’s always better to hear both sides of the story.

29

[quote]jo3 wrote:
MD or not, Aragon brings up some interesting issues. I think it’s always better to hear both sides of the story.

[/quote]

And whoever said that Alan is not an MD, that implies that all MDs have superior reasoning skills. Let’s not forget that researchers are prone to bias as much as the layman (and Alan isn’t exactly a layman).

I agree with all the points that Alan made in that rebuttal. Debra, look up the rebuttal online. You’ll be surprised.

30

[quote]debraD wrote:

I liked this video. It’s a long video but worth the watch IMO.[/quote]

Deb I liked that video to!

31

[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:

[quote]jo3 wrote:
MD or not, Aragon brings up some interesting issues. I think it’s always better to hear both sides of the story.

[/quote]

And whoever said that Alan is not an MD, that implies that all MDs have superior reasoning skills. Let’s not forget that researchers are prone to bias as much as the layman (and Alan isn’t exactly a layman).

I agree with all the points that Alan made in that rebuttal. Debra, look up the rebuttal online. You’ll be surprised.[/quote]

Alan is attempting to analyze study with no medical research background. An MD has more specialized training in addition I think Dr. Lusting qualification qualifies him more than Alan.

http://www.ucsfhealth.org/adult/cgi-bin/prd.cgi?action=DISPLAYDOCTOR&doctorid=1721

Look it up yourself. So before you jump on the Alan bandwagon with everyone else maybe you should expand your own research as I am sure you are as qualified as Alan to analyze the research.

32

[quote]debraD wrote:

I liked this video. It’s a long video but worth the watch IMO.[/quote]

absolutely. Now I see why Bill Roberts said consuming chocolate milk for kids PWO is not the best choice (assuming HFCS)

33

[quote]supertrain-int wrote:

[quote]debraD wrote:

I liked this video. It’s a long video but worth the watch IMO.[/quote]

This is the guy that Alan Aragon took apart

[/quote]

Who doesn’t ARagorn try to take apart? Seriously, Dr. Lustig explains it quite well in the video, and I’m sure he has much more knowledge/experience on the subject that most people

34

[quote]honkie wrote:
Your assumptions are wrong about the process in which HFCS goes through is the same as sucrose. I will post the studies latter as heading out for brunch (organic restaurant of cause). [/quote]

Great, finally someone bringing some research - looking forward to it, thanks for your effort - not sure if you looked at the references that I provided - not assumptions?

[quote]honkie wrote:
As far as obesity in Australia you first need to discount the Aborigines from that total as they been forced to shift so far off their natural diet, they are malnourished, and mistreated in the most part.[/quote]

They make up 0.6% of the population according to our 2006 census figures??? While they do have there problems, they don;t skew the data THAT much!

[quote]honkie wrote:
Now discussing this rest of the population it’s more than likely it’s too much carbs in general, in particular wheat products. You see lines around the corner in the mornings at certain brands of donut shops. We have seen an increase in diabetes, high blood pressure, elevated blood lipids, altered hormonal profiles. Consumption of sugar in Australia is greater than even the US per capita. [/quote]

This is the point everyone else not on the Fructose/HFCS bangwagon is making - it is the extra carbs and calories (plus reduced activity at the other end) not a single ingredient!

35

True its not just one factor, it may not be that simple though eat less CHO’s, junk calories and increase activity, there are people taking that advice and and still not seeing the results they desire.

36

[quote]staticx wrote:
True its not just one factor, it may not be that simple though eat less CHO’s, junk calories and increase activity, there are people taking that advice and and still not seeing the results they desire.[/quote]

Although large populations surveys and food consumption data says that they generally AREN’T taking the advice. No doubt some people are having issues (metabolic syndrome and the like which alters the equation somewhat) but I don’t think they are in the majority

37

[quote]staticx wrote:
True its not just one factor, it may not be that simple though eat less CHO’s, junk calories and increase activity, there are people taking that advice and and still not seeing the results they desire.[/quote]

It seems obvious to me that if there is any lesson to be taken from any of this research is that everybody has to find out what effect these different variables have on themselves and apply them based on their experimentation. If people sit around waiting to be told what to do by some trainer, MD or self professed expert instead of understanding the forces at work they have a pretty good chance at failure IMO.

It’s also pretty common sense that genetics, hormones, diet, conditioning and exercise are ALL factors and if people can’t get that then I don’t know what else to say. Other than I don’t think they want to get it.

38

[quote]honkie wrote:

[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:

[quote]jo3 wrote:
MD or not, Aragon brings up some interesting issues. I think it’s always better to hear both sides of the story.

[/quote]

And whoever said that Alan is not an MD, that implies that all MDs have superior reasoning skills. Let’s not forget that researchers are prone to bias as much as the layman (and Alan isn’t exactly a layman).

I agree with all the points that Alan made in that rebuttal. Debra, look up the rebuttal online. You’ll be surprised.[/quote]

Alan is attempting to analyze study with no medical research background. An MD has more specialized training in addition I think Dr. Lusting qualification qualifies him more than Alan.

http://www.ucsfhealth.org/adult/cgi-bin/prd.cgi?action=DISPLAYDOCTOR&doctorid=1721

Look it up yourself. So before you jump on the Alan bandwagon with everyone else maybe you should expand your own research as I am sure you are as qualified as Alan to analyze the research.

[/quote]

I am pretty sure that it was Dr. Lustig whom AA claims made the statement that Americans are eating an average of 600 cals more per day than in the past 20 years, which means that, beyond the fact that we have more HFCS in foods, people are simply eating more calories AND (obviously) are more sedentary, hence leading to greater weight gain in the general populace.

I still haven’t seen a study that compares the health effects of HFCS to naturally occurring sugar when isocaloric diets are compared.

If it has been studied, I would appreciate if someone posted a link (or three).

And again, whether Alan has an MD or not does not disqualify some of his criticisms of Dr. Lustig’s arguments against HFCS.

Let’s face it: The foods that contain HFCS are probably not the best foods for (the majority) of of us looking to improve our physiques. That doesn’t mean it’s the HFCS we should be avoiding; I doubt if HFCS was absent in these foods that the foods would be recommended dietary staples.

39

To say HFCS is the cause of obesity is one thing, but to deny it’s harmful effects on the body is ludicrous.

Sounds like typical dietitians recommending margarine over butter

40

[quote]supertrain-int wrote:

[quote]debraD wrote:

I liked this video. It’s a long video but worth the watch IMO.[/quote]

This is the guy that Alan Aragon took apart

[/quote]
If anything Alan just criticized him on how he delivered his presentation based on the responses of how a few watchers took it, not on the metabolic pathways or the biochemistry. Anyone with common sense,(which is not so common) would have gotten from his message that sucrose and HFC are almost the same thing with HFC with 1 added extra step with sucrase turning HFC into free glucose and fructose, that both HFC and sucrose are equally bad for you in significant amounts. Doctors usually have to be aggressive with their message so that any response comes from it irregardless if a few people overreact.