[quote]silverhydra wrote:
Just throwing this out there, I have seen scattered sources mention that the isomer in HFCS is a much higher concentration of D-fructose than regular fructose (combination of D and L isomers) should be.
I don’t know the validity of these claims, but they are usually followed with saying that the D-isomer goes through de novo lipogenesis much easier then the L-isomer. (Either than, or they produce more Glycerol-3-phosphate via DHAP; thanks Wikipedia!)
If anyone could shed light on this topic it would be much appreciated.[/quote]
Well in order to convert the L isomer into the D isomer, the five membered ring has to be opened up and then isomerized. I’m not sure if the body actually has the enzymes to do this. Once it is in th D configuration, it can then be phosphorylated and cleaved into DHAP and glyceraldehyde. Glyceraldehyde is then further phosphorylated into GAP (Glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate).
Assuming the body has the enzymes to convert the L isomer into the D isomer, then I don’t think there might be that much of a difference in terms of utilization. However, if the body does not have those enzymes then the proportion of L to D isomers can have quite a significant effect.
[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.
[/quote]
BINGO!
Different things work for different people. As a general rule, Excess of ANYTHING can have a negative impact on the human organism, we are pretty well put together for dealing with a little bit of this and a little bit of that. I personally do best on lots of clean meat and clean fruits and veggies. I get sluggish with too much carbs so I don’t do too much pasta or potatoes. Rice seems to sit well with me though. Also I put sugar in my coffe, I like it and I’m going to keep doing it dammit!
[quote]honkie wrote:
Why is no one addressing the GMO issue???
Looks like those pro HFCS are avoiding this key issue.[/quote]
It’s possible to be pro-HFCS? Thought the options were anti- and couldn’t care less.
I wish I could help you on GMOs, but I lack the knowledge; so I’ll bump this thread and hope someone else pops in.
And FWIW, I doubt the OP will be dropping by again. He had his fun on this message board amongst many, and I see no reason why he should see it to the end if it is his nature to copypasta the same thing all over the internet. (Otherwise he’s a very busy man)
[quote]honkie wrote:
Why is no one addressing the GMO issue???
Looks like those pro HFCS are avoiding this key issue.[/quote]
It’s possible to be pro-HFCS? Thought the options were anti- and couldn’t care less.
I wish I could help you on GMOs, but I lack the knowledge; so I’ll bump this thread and hope someone else pops in.
And FWIW, I doubt the OP will be dropping by again. He had his fun on this message board amongst many, and I see no reason why he should see it to the end if it is his nature to copypasta the same thing all over the internet. (Otherwise he’s a very busy man)
[/quote]
Wow. feelin’ the love on this board and via a few email trolls stalking me at the moment!
Spent the last week here - 404 Page Not Found, so have been a little busy! Will post some interesting stuff on Paul Hodges actually putting his TVA research into context and some interesting statements from Professor Stu Phillips on why he thinks acute rises in Testosterone and Growth Hormone have NOTHING to do with muscle growth. Will take a few days to get to this - so I will be back!
Back to the original topic - I haven’t addressed the GMO issue for two reasons
It wasn’t part of the original discussion from the two authors I spoke about, it was only introduced here midway through the discussion, so I’m not sure it was totally relevant TO WHAT I WAS SAYING. I’m not saying that it isn’t relevant to the overall discussion - it just seems like those attacking the original article, moved the goal posts when unable to argue on the original topic of the difference between sucrose and HFCS.
I don’t know much about GMO (although Penn and Teller did cover it for a few minutes on an episode of Bullshit), I’m not going to watch a few videos and then claim that I am an expert or that I can intelligently converse on the topic - so I have nothing to add to that part of the discussion.
As a third lesser point, more of a question - I was surprised by the number of replies that I didn;t get the email “Subscribed topic update” to, is this common. Even if I had got them, I probably wouldn;t have made it back - just wondering if everyone else gets an email everytime a new reply is added?
[quote]honkie wrote:
I see on another forum that you avoided a question regarding HFCS and GMO.
Can you comment on this and do you think that is there any dangers to consuming GMO (which HFCS is).[/quote]
I actually stopped conversing with a guy who first said that I should look at the biochemistry on HFCS and sucrose not being the same, but when asked to show me where to find it, I was told in any textbook.
I provided several references from different journals supporting that tthey were the same[/quote]
It must be that you did not understand your references.
More specifically, why don’t you try searching the medical literature for metabolic syndrome and fructose.
HFCS has a higher fructose percentage than does sucrose.
Not that sucrose is a great thing to consume in quantity either: it’s not. But HFCS is even somewhat worse, if in high quantity, due to higher total fructose content (by which I mean fructose or fructofuranosyl residues.)
Calling sucrose and HFCS “the same” when in fact they have different saccharide content is incorrect.
Bill I think he just can’t admit when he is wrong. As I posted earlier there are big difference on a chemical level between the two Here they are again just incase he missed them.
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.
No we have that settled.
I a very interested how a dietitian does not know anything about GMO when their patients may be consuming them. Should they not know about what people are eating. Just seems like someone is just too lazy to do their homework.
[quote]honkie wrote:
I see on another forum that you avoided a question regarding HFCS and GMO.
Can you comment on this and do you think that is there any dangers to consuming GMO (which HFCS is).[/quote]
I actually stopped conversing with a guy who first said that I should look at the biochemistry on HFCS and sucrose not being the same, but when asked to show me where to find it, I was told in any textbook.
I provided several references from different journals supporting that tthey were the same[/quote]
It must be that you did not understand your references.[/quote]
That’s what I couldn’t understand. It was right there in black and white yet he was unable to see it. My only conclusion was that he couldn’t read. He kept pushing for the answer - like I owed it to him to scan the pages highlight the points and send it to him. He claimed to have the books then why couldn’t he get off his ass and find it for him self?
[quote]supertrain-int wrote:
Priorities, reduce sugar intake - not sugar is cause of all evils and thus must be totally avoided. If someone asked about GMO I would research it (and not just read a book or two)! None of this is all or nothing.
[/quote]
Yes. Yes it is. Sugar should absolutely be avoided in any refined form. That little bit of sugar in fruit is cool, but sugar is absolutely unquestionably shit food.
Perhaps I’m taking what you said out of context, but how, as a dietitian, can you condone refined sugar?
[quote]supertrain-int wrote:
Priorities, reduce sugar intake - not sugar is cause of all evils and thus must be totally avoided. If someone asked about GMO I would research it (and not just read a book or two)! None of this is all or nothing.
[/quote]
Yes. Yes it is. Sugar should absolutely be avoided in any refined form. That little bit of sugar in fruit is cool, but sugar is absolutely unquestionably shit food.
Perhaps I’m taking what you said out of context, but how, as a dietitian, can you condone refined sugar?[/quote]
[quote]supertrain-int wrote:
Priorities, reduce sugar intake - not sugar is cause of all evils and thus must be totally avoided. If someone asked about GMO I would research it (and not just read a book or two)! None of this is all or nothing.
[/quote]
Yes. Yes it is. Sugar should absolutely be avoided in any refined form. That little bit of sugar in fruit is cool, but sugar is absolutely unquestionably shit food.
Perhaps I’m taking what you said out of context, but how, as a dietitian, can you condone refined sugar?[/quote]
I hope you’re being sarcastic.[/quote]
Not at all. Refined sugar has no nutritional value whatsoever. It’s just carbohydrate. No vitamins, minerals, fiber, protein, fat, photochemicals, nothing.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
More specifically, why don’t you try searching the medical literature for metabolic syndrome and fructose.
HFCS has a higher fructose percentage than does sucrose.
Not that sucrose is a great thing to consume in quantity either: it’s not. But HFCS is even somewhat worse, if in high quantity, due to higher total fructose content (by which I mean fructose or fructofuranosyl residues.)
Calling sucrose and HFCS “the same” when in fact they have different saccharide content is incorrect.[/quote]
I think we’ve been over the fact that they are 5% different in the most common usages a number of times already!
[quote]honkie wrote:
Bill I think he just can’t admit when he is wrong. As I posted earlier there are big difference on a chemical level between the two Here they are again just incase he missed them.
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.
No we have that settled.
I a very interested how a dietitian does not know anything about GMO when their patients may be consuming them. Should they not know about what people are eating. Just seems like someone is just too lazy to do their homework.[/quote]
Speaking of lazy - how about delivering on your previous promise?? "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]honkie wrote:
I see on another forum that you avoided a question regarding HFCS and GMO.
Can you comment on this and do you think that is there any dangers to consuming GMO (which HFCS is).[/quote]
I actually stopped conversing with a guy who first said that I should look at the biochemistry on HFCS and sucrose not being the same, but when asked to show me where to find it, I was told in any textbook.
I provided several references from different journals supporting that tthey were the same[/quote]
It must be that you did not understand your references.[/quote]
That’s what I couldn’t understand. It was right there in black and white yet he was unable to see it. My only conclusion was that he couldn’t read. He kept pushing for the answer - like I owed it to him to scan the pages highlight the points and send it to him. He claimed to have the books then why couldn’t he get off his ass and find it for him self?[/quote]
Re-read this post - I think you are confused I provided the references! Read back I looked through a number of my textbooks - it wasn’t there! NOt in index, more mention in glucose of fructose section - I eevn named the textbooks.
You don;t owe me anything but you did say you would post the references. Please pay attention!
[quote]supertrain-int wrote:
Priorities, reduce sugar intake - not sugar is cause of all evils and thus must be totally avoided. If someone asked about GMO I would research it (and not just read a book or two)! None of this is all or nothing.
[/quote]
Yes. Yes it is. Sugar should absolutely be avoided in any refined form. That little bit of sugar in fruit is cool, but sugar is absolutely unquestionably shit food.
Perhaps I’m taking what you said out of context, but how, as a dietitian, can you condone refined sugar?[/quote]
Let’s start counting the logical fallacies in arguements here - this one is called false dichotomy - since I don’t say that sucrose should be totally avoided, I must condone it!
I a very interested how a dietitian does not know anything about GMO when their patients may be consuming them. Should they not know about what people are eating. Just seems like someone is just too lazy to do their homework.[/quote]
You asked this on the first page and I answered it! Here it is again!
Since journals and conferences don’t cover this in terms of importance for nutrition - none of my peers are talking about it and researchers don’t come and talk to us about it, i don’t spend any time on it. How else would I prioritse all of the theories that exist?
Research might come, I might be proven wrong, but I don’t buy into that everything is paid for by big pharma thus i can’t trust any science, journals or high ranking researchers. When they present the research, I’ll jump on board. I may jump on late, but it hellps me getting on the wrong bus too! The system may not be perfect, its the best we have.
[quote]honkie wrote:
Bill I think he just can’t admit when he is wrong. As I posted earlier there are big difference on a chemical level between the two Here they are again just incase he missed them.
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.
No we have that settled.
I a very interested how a dietitian does not know anything about GMO when their patients may be consuming them. Should they not know about what people are eating. Just seems like someone is just too lazy to do their homework.[/quote]
Again, I’ve covered this also!
Yep 5% difference, hardly enough to blame an epidemic on.
Don’t see the relevance when the carbohydrates appear the same in the small intestine!
Sucrose is broken by sucrase enzyme in stomach to constituent glucose and fructose - thus when they both get to the small intestine THEY ARE EXACTLY THE SAME!
[quote]honkie wrote:
Bill I think he just can’t admit when he is wrong. As I posted earlier there are big difference on a chemical level between the two Here they are again just incase he missed them.
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.
No we have that settled.
I a very interested how a dietitian does not know anything about GMO when their patients may be consuming them. Should they not know about what people are eating. Just seems like someone is just too lazy to do their homework.[/quote]
Again, I’ve covered this also!
Yep 5% difference, hardly enough to blame an epidemic on.
Don’t see the relevance when the carbohydrates appear the same in the small intestine!
Sucrose is broken by sucrase enzyme in stomach to constituent glucose and fructose - thus when they both get to the small intestine THEY ARE EXACTLY THE SAME![/quote]
I doubt you have any science background at all. To state they are exactly the same is proof of this. They are not the same as already pointed it out and if you even bothered to read even one of the biochemistry books you say you have you would know this. Maybe you should go back to your university and ask for a refund.
[quote]honkie wrote:
Bill I think he just can’t admit when he is wrong. As I posted earlier there are big difference on a chemical level between the two Here they are again just incase he missed them.
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.
No we have that settled.
I a very interested how a dietitian does not know anything about GMO when their patients may be consuming them. Should they not know about what people are eating. Just seems like someone is just too lazy to do their homework.[/quote]
Again, I’ve covered this also!
Yep 5% difference, hardly enough to blame an epidemic on.
Don’t see the relevance when the carbohydrates appear the same in the small intestine!
Sucrose is broken by sucrase enzyme in stomach to constituent glucose and fructose - thus when they both get to the small intestine THEY ARE EXACTLY THE SAME![/quote]
I doubt you have any science background at all. To state they are exactly the same is proof of this. They are not the same as already pointed it out and if you even bothered to read even one of the biochemistry books you say you have you would know this. Maybe you should go back to your university and ask for a refund. [/quote]
Just like afong on another forum (amybe it is you??), you say you have references, you say to read the books and can’t deliver the evidence - it’s just there you go and find it.
You said that you would provide the references - have I called your bluff?
