View Single Post
Old 09-26-2013, 01:20 PM   #39
diamondgeog
Senior Member
 
diamondgeog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 1,209

Default

I read the earlier Aragon link. And you are making some very good points. Dose and context does matter. A LOT.

I am not as sure that the bonds don't matter. But fully admit I don't know. For me the jury is still out on the bonds not mattering and the impacts of HFCS versus just sugar. I am not willing to say it is minimal, it might be. It might also for some be a large difference and for others not so much. If you are on the cusp of diabetes maybe HFCS has more impact.

I will try and find more links on the addiction side.

http://online.wsj.com/article/PR-CO-...06-904320.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...e-cocaine.html

http://www.science20.com/news_articl...earcher-112817

Now those are all referencing the same paper. Bottomline for me is a lot of unknowns. In 100% agreement overall carbs/sweeteners of all type should be the main focus.

And this is so complex it is hard to unravel. We consume a lot more total sweeteners now on average. We being the U.S. Was sweeter than sugar HFCS part of increasing cravings for sugar of all types? Was the marketing? Was the lower costs that HFCS allowed?

So far right now I am sugar bad, HFCS bad. HFCS additional negative impacts beyond sugar? Unknown with certainty, but some(I think it is a lot you might not) evidence that there are.

And as far as context making a difference, fructose from fruit and from HFCS is a different context and extremely likely it is getting processed differently and having different overall impacts.

It may turn out there are not additional negative impacts from HFCS. Perhaps. But since HFCS is in stuff I shouldn't be eating anyway, not a bad thing to try to avoid.
__________________


Restart: May 1, 2013 at 285. HW 340

Last edited by diamondgeog : 09-26-2013 at 01:24 PM.
diamondgeog is offline   Reply With Quote