US citizens are being duped into consuming sub-standard Pig-Feed in their food and Soda Pop!!!

Originally posted by DeadFlagBlues


Yes, it matters very much how it's aquired. Processed fructose doesn't have any enzymes, vitamins, and minerals of it's own. You have to compensate micronutrients from your body to assimilate the fructose.

Your liver uses a couple of stock transport chains (GLUT2 and GLUT5) to convert it to glucose. The only thing they use is ATP, which you have in abundance.

Your "fruit sweetener" is in general nothing but boiled-down grape juice or pear juice that's been filtered. It's a con job for people that think "natural" sugar is somehow better or different.

As where fruit or vegetables maintains their own enzymes and aids the processing of such sugars. Not to mention that processed sugars make their way into processed foods, and well all know how poor the nutritional value of processed foods are.

Your body does not, in general, make use of enzymes consumed in food. Any enzymes in the fruit or vegetables are degraded by the acid and enzymes in the stomach like any other protein. The exceptions to this are generally digestive enzymes of mammals - their structure generally protects them from digestion as you might expect, so you can consume proteases or pancreatic enzymes. But plant enzymes? Nah. Fructose is absorbed by the intestine, transported to the liver, and processed by the two enzyme chains I mentioned. They're not plant enzymes.

Addition of "fruit sweetener" is common in processed foods - especially when they're trying to con you into thinking it makes the food "better". Faux jam and jelly comes to mind.

From what I've read, processed fructose causes a lot of confusion after it's ingested. It dulls out your insulin sensitivity, increases cholesterol, confuses your metabolism, produces more lactic acid in your blood, and it doesn't even convert to usable glucose. Your body just ends up kind of throwing it away. The further away our food is away from its natural state, the less beneficial it is to our health.

Any fructose does some of this - with the exception of the part where your body somehow can't make use of "processed fructose". Fructose is fructose.

I thought the link was pretty informative and a good perspective on the validity of these manufacturer's claims of the processed fructose being "natural."

My impression (just reread it - still stands) is that they're quibbling over the definition of "natural" "if a scientist makes it, (even if it's identical) then it's not natural" Ok. It's only "natural" if a plant does the same thing?

So, if I take the same enzymes the plant uses, and also make fructose, it's not "natural". Sure.

It's - the - same - freaking - molecule.

reply to post by Tom Bedlam


Have you checked this quote out Tom B:

Reactive carbonyls, which have been linked to tissue damage and complications of diabetes, are elevated in the blood of people with diabetes. A single can of soda, however, has five times that concentration of reactive carbonyls. Old-fashioned table sugar, on the other hand, has no reactive carbonyls.

www.femhealth.com...

reply to post by anhinga


Now, that might be a difference. Not because it's "evil fructose" or "good fructose", but that it's got a contaminant.

I'm not a proponent for HFCS - I just don't buy into the argument that "non-natural" fructose is different than what you get out of a grape.

Interestingly, the guy they're quoting from, Dr Chi-Tang Ho, says you should consume aspartame or sucralose sweetened soft drinks to be safe from HFCS in cola.

Lona Sandon is assistant professor of clinical nutrition at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas, and a spokeswoman for the American Dietetic Association. She said the Rutgers study is still inconclusive.

"It doesn't address the risk [of diabetes], it simply shows a possible mechanism for why there might be more risk in children who drink more HFCS-sweetened sodas," she said.

"Although there are other epidemiologic studies showing a correlation between sweetened soda and diabetes, it is not a proven cause-and-effect," Sandon said.

Nevertheless, she suggests that everyone follow dietary guidelines from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Those guidelines advocate reducing sweetened drinks from the diet, and "most health professionals currently recommend that kids get zero sugary drinks a day, particularly overweight or obese children," Sandon said.

edit: You shouldn't consume a lot of fructose anyway - it really screws with your blood lipids and fat regulation. Specifically, it mucks around with cholesterol, triglyceride, uric acid, insulin, and cortisol, and makes your platelets more "sticky". Fructose is the toxic part of table sugar.

[edit on 4-11-2007 by Tom Bedlam]

Your liver uses a couple of stock transport chains (GLUT2 and GLUT5) to convert it to glucose. The only thing they use is ATP, which you have in abundance.

Considering that fructose is largely absorbed in your jejenum before it even gets to your liver..It wouldn't necessarily rob your liver of a large number of nutrients, though usually ingesting the food that comes with it that is more than likey to be of no nutrional value, that fructose will be robbing micronutrients through the entire digestion process. After the fact Even then your liver converts the remaining fructose into fatty acids much faster than it does useable glucose. The remaining fructose that the liver doesn't convert is released in your urine. Like I have stated in my last post..

Your "fruit sweetener" is in general nothing but boiled-down grape juice or pear juice that's been filtered. It's a con job for people that think "natural" sugar is somehow better or different.

If these sweetners are produced "naturally" then they have nutrients, living enzymes, and vitamins(Grade D maple for example).Though you have an opinion, which is fine, and by now, we all know that fructose = fructose. That argument is bulletproof, and I'm not disagreeing with you. My argument is the way these types of processed sugars are ingested, not which one is better. That element was never part of my discussion. I don't trust anything that's processed.

Your body does not, in general, make use of enzymes consumed in food. Any enzymes in the fruit or vegetables are degraded by the acid and enzymes in the stomach like any other protein. The exceptions to this are generally digestive enzymes of mammals - their structure generally protects them from digestion as you might expect, so you can consume proteases or pancreatic enzymes. But plant enzymes? Nah. Fructose is absorbed by the intestine, transported to the liver, and processed by the two enzyme chains I mentioned. They're not plant enzymes.

The argument here isn't what the food enzymes do in your body, but prior to being digested. Fruit and vegetables becoming ripe are due to enzymes breaking them down and processing them makes the product immune from breaking down or aging, and it shows due to the displacement of sugar in your urine, or the conversion to fatty acids instead of glucose. This is why I brought up the loss of your own micronutrients and the like..

Any fructose does some of this - with the exception of the part where your body somehow can't make use of "processed fructose". Fructose is fructose.

It does make use but has a tendency to be converted into different things. once again the fatty acid/glucose production, or the amount that is passed through your liver and into your urine.

My impression (just reread it - still stands) is that they're quibbling over the definition of "natural" "if a scientist makes it, (even if it's identical) then it's not natural" Ok. It's only "natural" if a plant does the same thing?

Regardless of the end, the means are unnatural. Simple and plain.

So, if I take the same enzymes the plant uses, and also make fructose, it's not "natural". Sure.

It's - the - same - freaking - molecule.

That's a natural process. Like I said before, it's not so much the end result, but the method used to produce the the end result. The "all natural" marketing ploy is misleading, and I think you know it. "All natural" is commonly associated with "good health," and they're blatantly taking advantage of the stupidity and sheer ignorance of the people. All natural, is untouched, unmolested, and grown without artificial human interference.

reply to post by Tom Bedlam

edit: You shouldn't consume a lot of fructose anyway - it really screws with your blood lipids and fat regulation. Specifically, it mucks around with cholesterol, triglyceride, uric acid, insulin, and cortisol, and makes your platelets more "sticky". Fructose is the toxic part of table sugar.

[edit on 4-11-2007 by Tom Bedlam]

Exactly.

Very well put.

reply to post by CyberTruth


In regards to the initial post, I'd like to write this.

It's not anybody's fault but our own. We ulitmately choose what goes into our bodies, not a company or corporation, hell, not even the government.
"WE" need to stop acting so helpless and take responsibility for our own health.

Originally posted by DeadFlagBlues

Your liver uses a couple of stock transport chains (GLUT2 and GLUT5) to convert it to glucose. The only thing they use is ATP, which you have in abundance.

Considering that fructose is largely absorbed in your jejenum before it even gets to your liver..It wouldn't necessarily rob your liver of a large number of nutrients, though usually ingesting the food that comes with it that is more than likey to be of no nutrional value, that fructose will be robbing micronutrients through the entire digestion process. After the fact Even then your liver converts the remaining fructose into fatty acids much faster than it does useable glucose. The remaining fructose that the liver doesn't convert is released in your urine. Like I have stated in my last post..

Um, all the food you absorb is transported to the liver through the portal system. You really can't use fructose in your metabolism at all, but the liver has systems to convert it to glucose. So it doesn't really have much to do with micronutrients.

When your liver "sees" that fructose, it gets wacky with the fatty acids and insulin balance, which trigger adrenal cascades trying to compensate, so you get cortisol and stress hormones. So maybe the downstream results may be the use of nutrients if you want to look at it that way. You're not designed for a lot of fructose at one shot.

If these sweetners are produced "naturally" then they have nutrients, living enzymes, and vitamins(Grade D maple for example).Though you have an opinion, which is fine, and by now, we all know that fructose = fructose. That argument is bulletproof, and I'm not disagreeing with you. My argument is the way these types of processed sugars are ingested, not which one is better. That element was never part of my discussion. I don't trust anything that's processed.

Other than the "living enzymes" part, I agree with you to some extent. Enzymes aren't alive, and if they're plant enzymes especially, you're going to dismantle them right off the bat like any other protein.

But a lot of the "fruit sweetener" I see advertised is boiled down white grape juice, which is basically a fructose syrup, much like maple, and it's not going to be good for you either.

The argument here isn't what the food enzymes do in your body, but prior to being digested. Fruit and vegetables becoming ripe are due to enzymes breaking them down and processing them makes the product immune from breaking down or aging, and it shows due to the displacement of sugar in your urine, or the conversion to fatty acids instead of glucose. This is why I brought up the loss of your own micronutrients and the like..

But the fruit doesn't have fructose->glucose enzyme chains, as far as I know. Therefore, anytime you eat it, the "sweet" part is going to be fructose.

As far as "conversion to fatty acids", the fructose isn't directly doing this, it's being converted to glucose. A fatty acid is a carboxylic acid group with a tail, much more complex structure.

What's likely happening is that the liver is responding to the fructose as a signaling system. It does that a lot - jump the gun based on other inputs. You can get the same sorts of effects by drinking an artificially sweetened drink, just the taste in your mouth can provoke your liver and pancreas into "getting ready" to deal with the sugar flux. But then there's no sugar, so you get insulin release, hypoglycemia, and a bad case of munchies. I don't think artificially sweetened drinks are a diet aid for that reason.

From what I've read, your liver sees fructose as a signaling system for starch input, because usually any fruit you eat will be mostly starch which is going to convert to glucose. So the fructose rush gives your liver the heads-up that glucose is about to follow - only with HFCS or fruit sweetener/syrups, it doesn't. So you're left with all this insulin and fatty acid metabolism cranking up to store the glucose either as glycogen or fats. Only there isn't any, at least not right away - it takes time to convert the fructose. So your metabolism is all dressed up and no place to go, and you end up with your cholesterol and triglycerides jacked up, and your adrenal system trying to compensate.

At least with table sugar (sucrose) you get glucose and fructose right now, so they tend to compensate for each other.

Personally, I'm not a big proponent for sweetening at all, I generally only get it as undesired HFCS in food and the occasional bit of jam or honey. I don't use sugar on food or in drinks. We've had the same pound of sugar in the cabinet for going on two years - it's still half full.

edit: that slow metabolic rate for fructose is another bad thing - your pancreas has two time constants it looks at. If you get a spurt of sugar like a snack, you'll get a spurt of insulin and that's it. But if you sustain the glucose input for more than (IIRC) about twenty minutes, you will provoke a sustained release of insulin. Since the fructose sort of drags out for a while, if you get a big dose of it by itself you'll provoke the "meal" type of pancreatic secretions and get a big drawn out insulin response. That, too, might be part of why HFCS or other fructose sweeteners cause pancreatic damage.

Table sugar would be better. A nice fresh apple would be better yet.

[edit on 4-11-2007 by Tom Bedlam]

reply to post by Tom Bedlam

Um, all the food you absorb is transported to the liver through the portal system. You really can't use fructose in your metabolism at all, but the liver has systems to convert it to glucose. So it doesn't really have much to do with micronutrients.

Well what's all this I hear about copper deficiency in correlation with fructose? Is it absorbing and utilizing them, inturn getting junked by the liver, or what?

When your liver "sees" that fructose, it gets wacky with the fatty acids and insulin balance, which trigger adrenal cascades trying to compensate, so you get cortisol and stress hormones. So maybe the downstream results may be the use of nutrients if you want to look at it that way. You're not designed for a lot of fructose at one shot.

Yeah, I understand that.. I don't think there's any confusion there. That's the problem, though. Everything has HFCS or an equivalent in it, so our bodies are systematically put through the "shock" of being hit with constant sugar.

Other than the "living enzymes" part, I AGREE WITH YOUto some extent. Enzymes aren't alive, and if they're plant enzymes especially, you're going to dismantle them right off the bat like any other protein.

But a lot of the "fruit sweetener" I see advertised is boiled down white grape juice, which is basically a fructose syrup, much like maple, and it's not going to be good for you either.

You "agree?" Who knew they'd make supercomputers that could agree with humans.. Amazing . "Living Enzymes" is a not a literal term. Just means the microorganisms that are making them aren't dead or "cooked out."

As far as "sweetners" go, I tend to stay away from them. The healthy alternatives are doing the same scam, just playing a different angle. I understand where your "disdain" comes from, considering I feel the same way. People think because it's "different," inturn makes it "better."

As far as "conversion to fatty acids", the fructose isn't directly doing this, it's being converted to glucose. A fatty acid is a carboxylic acid group with a tail, much more complex structure. What's likely happening is that the liver is responding to the fructose as a signaling system. It does that a lot - jump the gun based on other inputs. You can get the same sorts of effects by drinking an artificially sweetened drink, just the taste in your mouth can provoke your liver and pancreas into "getting ready" to deal with the sugar flux. But then there's no sugar, so you get insulin release, hypoglycemia, and a bad case of munchies. I don't think artificially sweetened drinks are a diet aid for that reason.

From what I've read, your liver sees fructose as a signaling system for starch input, because usually any fruit you eat will be mostly starch which is going to convert to glucose. So the fructose rush gives your liver the heads-up that glucose is about to follow - only with HFCS or fruit sweetener/syrups, it doesn't. So you're left with all this insulin and fatty acid metabolism cranking up to store the glucose either as glycogen or fats. Only there isn't any, at least not right away - it takes time to convert the fructose. So your metabolism is all dressed up and no place to go, and you end up with your cholesterol and triglycerides jacked up, and your adrenal system trying to compensate.

At least with table sugar (sucrose) you get glucose and fructose right now, so they tend to compensate for each other. .

I figured almost the same. I think it has a lot to do with 'cravings' as well. If you're craving a piece of candy, and you're fixated on it, I think that's your mind tricking your guts to get ready for sugar intake. I've always wondered why there is a desire to eat certain foods after you get a smell, or a slight taste, or craving. That could very well be it. Being tricked by your own senses..

Personally, I'm not a big proponent for sweetening at all, I generally only get it as undesired HFCS in food and the occasional bit of jam or honey. I don't use sugar on food or in drinks. We've had the same pound of sugar in the cabinet for going on two years - it's still half full.

edit: that slow metabolic rate for fructose is another bad thing - your pancreas has two time constants it looks at. If you get a spurt of sugar like a snack, you'll get a spurt of insulin and that's it. But if you sustain the glucose input for more than (IIRC) about twenty minutes, you will provoke a sustained release of insulin. Since the fructose sort of drags out for a while, if you get a big dose of it by itself you'll provoke the "meal" type of pancreatic secretions and get a big drawn out insulin response. That, too, might be part of why HFCS or other fructose sweeteners cause pancreatic damage.

Table sugar would be better. A nice fresh apple would be better yet.

You're on the money there. Not too many people are aware when it comes to their diet. They just go with the wind, and the moment you analyze certain aspects like these, you really gain a new respect for health in general. I haven't talked anatomy since high school.. It's good to be back.

Interesting to note: For anyone interested in doing a taste test comparison or are just interested in stocking up on coca cola with sugar vs. corn syrup, In about a month, Coca-cola will be selling special cola for passover. For some reason this special passover cola supposedly has sugar in it instead of corn syrup. You can easily find this because it will look like the regular Coke except it will have a yellow cap.

[edit on 4-11-2007 by CyberTruth]

For starters....I hate (yes, strong word) Dr Pepper.....But while working in Stephenville TX for a month (2 hours southwest of Dallas, and the Rodeo capital of the world....Yee haaw) I found out that Dr Pepper is made in Dublin TX, 20 minutes away......And there they sell it with real sugarcane.....I loved it

[edit on 4-11-2007 by Steff]

Coca-cola made with sugar is very different in flavor - much better.

I was a cola fiend as a kid, Coke used to be more refreshing and had a "bite" to it that cleared your mouth out. Now it's like drinking syrup.

If you go out of the country, you still get 'old Coke'. At least you do in Central and South America. If you've got a big Hispanic contingent in your town, check out the Mexican groceries. If the Coke is in glass bottles and says "Hecho in Mexico" on it, you're good to go.

Just wanted to correct my last post on this forum. Passover Coke will be coming out around Easter time. I somehow confused Passover with Hanukkah Sorry!