Sweet but Not So Innocent?

On 26 May 2005 12:00:59 -0700, TC wrote in
<news:[email hidden]> on
sci.med.nutrition :

Quoted message said:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A8003-2003Mar10?language=printer

Sweet but Not So Innocent?
High-Fructose Corn Syrup May Act More Like Fat Than Sugar in the Body

By Sally Squires
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, March 11, 2003; Page HE01

Quoted message said:

From fruit-flavored drinks to energy bars, a huge array of sweetened
foods and beverages crowds grocery shelves, vending machines,
restaurant menus, school lunches and kitchens. According to the latest
figures from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), consumption of
various sweeteners, often in calorie-dense foods and drinks, has risen
in the United States from an estimated 113 pounds per person in 1966 to
147 pounds in 2001.

Last week, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommended limiting
intake of added sugars found in food and drink to no more than 10
percent of daily calories,

And 10 percent of calories looks to me quite a lot, anyway.

Quoted message said:

a step the WHO said could help stop the
worldwide rise in obesity that is fueling the growth of such chronic
diseases as type 2 diabetes. The WHO recommendation is far stricter
than any that U.S. groups have produced.

_____On the Web_____

· Dietary Guidelines for Americans
· USDA: Is Intake of Added Sugars Associated With Dietary Quality?

_____From Our Advertisers_____

· Find health and fitness experts in the Washington area.

Free E-mail Newsletters
Lean Plate Club
See a Sample | Sign Up Now

But increasingly, it's not just the growing consumption of foods with
added sugars that concerns some nutrition experts. What has also
changed during the past four decades, the USDA figures show, is the
type of sweeteners consumed -- a trend that some studies suggest may
help to undermine appetite control and possibly play a role in weight
gain.

In 1966, refined sugar, also known as sucrose,

By the way, "brown sugar" is sucrose as well, isn't it?

Quoted message said:

held the No. 1 slot,
accounting for 86 percent of sweeteners used, according to the USDA.
Today, sweeteners made from corn are the leader, racking up $4.5
billion in annual sales and accounting for 55 percent of the sweetener
market. That switch largely reflects the steady growth of high-fructose
corn syrup, which climbed from zero consumption in 1966 to 62.6 pounds
per person in 2001.

Wow!

Quoted message said:

While soft drinks and fruit beverages such as lemonade are the leading
products containing high-fructose corn syrup, plenty of other items --
including cookies, gum, jams, jellies and baked goods -- also contain
this syrup. [For more information about which foods contain these and
other added sweeteners, see the Lean Plate Club column on Page F2.]

Made from corn starch, high-fructose corn syrup is a thick liquid that
contains two basic sugar building blocks, fructose and glucose, in
roughly equal amounts. Sucrose, most familiar to consumers as table
sugar, is a larger sugar molecule that breaks down into glucose and
fructose in the intestine during metabolism.

An advantage of high-fructose corn syrup is that it "tastes sweeter
than refined sugar," making it a popular ingredient for food
manufacturers because it enables them to use less, says George A. Bray,
former director of Louisiana State University's Pennington Biomedical
Research Center in Baton Rouge. As a liquid, the syrup is easier to
blend into beverages than refined sugar, according to the National Soft
Drink Association (NSDA). Industry taste tests suggested that consumers
liked food and drink with high-fructose corn syrup as much as refined
beet or cane sugar.

In the 1980s, manufacturing methods improved, prompting a boost in
production of high-fructose corn syrup and a drop in price to just
pennies below that of refined sugar. "While that may not sound like
much to the average consumer, when you consider how many pounds [the
soft drink industry buys], it was millions of dollars if not hundreds
of millions of dollars in savings," says Drew Davis, NSDA's vice
president for federal affairs.

The switch made economic sense and, as Davis notes, "back then, there
was no suggestion that high-fructose corn syrup was metabolized
differently" than other sugars. More recent research suggests, however,
that there may be some unexpected nutritional consequences of using the
syrup. "Fructose is absorbed differently" than other sugars, says Bray.
"It doesn't register in the body metabolically the same way that
glucose does."

For example, consumption of glucose kicks off a cascade of biochemical
reactions. It increases production of insulin by the pancreas, which
enables sugar in the blood to be transported into cells, where it can
be used for energy. It increases production of leptin, a hormone that
helps regulate appetite and fat storage, and it suppresses production
of another hormone made by the stomach, ghrelin, that helps regulate
food intake. It has been theorized that when ghrelin levels drop, as
they do after eating carbohydrates composed of glucose, hunger
declines.

Fructose is a different story. It "appears to behave more like fat with
respect to the hormones involved in body weight regulation," explains
Peter Havel, associate professor of nutrition at the University of
California, Davis. "Fructose doesn't stimulate insulin secretion. It
doesn't increase leptin production or suppress production of ghrelin.
That suggests that consuming a lot of fructose, like consuming too much
fat, could contribute to weight gain."

Well, not that I love added sugars, but... consuming *a lot* of *anything*
could contribute to weight gain.

And fructose is not just an "added sugar", it is also naturally found in
fruit, isn't it? I don't drink pops and sweetened drinks, but I eat fruit.
Let's talk of *how much* fructose is too much, then. More than 40 grams
per meal?

Quoted message said:

Whether it actually does do this
is not known "because the studies have not been conducted," said Havel.

Another concern is the action of fructose in the liver, where it is
converted into the chemical backbone of trigylcerides more efficiently
than glucose. Like low-density lipoprotein -- the most damaging form of
cholesterol -- elevated levels of trigylcerides are linked to an
increased risk of heart disease. A University of Minnesota study
published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition in 2000 found
that in men, but not in women, fructose "produced significantly higher
[blood] levels" than did glucose. The researchers, led by J.P Bantle,
concluded that "diets high in added fructose may be undesirable,
particularly for men."

That makes sense to me.
But I wouldn't desire a diet high in sucrose either.

If I were to add *small amounts* of some sugar [let's say in a cake, where
you actually *need* some sugar], perhaps I'd go for fructose rather than
for sucrose, because 1) you need a bit less to taste sweet, 2) even small
amounts of glucose increase production of insulin, and we don't want a too
sharp increase of it when we eat a slice of cake, do we?... What do you
say?

Then, I believe it's still different if you are a sportsman and you spent
lots of energy, and you need it quickly... In that case sucrose is best, am
I right?

Quoted message said:

Other recent research suggests that fructose may alter the magnesium
balance in the body. That could, in turn, accelerate bone loss,
according to a USDA study published in 2000 in the Journal of the
American College of Nutrition.

In November, however, Havel and his colleagues published a review in
the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition that examined evidence from
multiple studies. They concluded that large quantities of fructose from
a variety of sources, including table sugar and high-fructose corn
syrup, induce insulin resistance, impair glucose tolerance, produce
high levels of insulin, boost a dangerous type of fat in the blood and
cause high blood pressure in animals. "The data in humans are less
clear," the team noted.

Others are skeptical that high-fructose corn syrup acts differently in
the body than table sugar. "I don't see it as a particular evil," says
Michael Jacobson, director of the Center for Science in the Public
Interest and a vocal critic of soft drinks, which he dubs "liquid
candy." "It wouldn't make much difference if soft drinks were sweetened
with sucrose [table sugar] or high-fructose corn syrup."

Anyway, just don't drink lots of soft drinks with added sugar.
Unsweetened fresh orange juice is just naturally sweet 🙂

Quoted message said:

Until scientists sort out the details, many nutrition experts say it
makes sense to not surpass the 10 percent recommendation of the WHO. On
a 2,000-calorie intake, that works out to about 200 calories -- roughly
the amount found in a 16.9-ounce bottle of soda or about eight Chunky
Chips Ahoy cookies or about an three ounces of plain M&M's. (Last year,
the National Academy of Sciences suggested that added sugars should not
exceed 25 percent of daily calories -- about 500 calories on a
2,000-calorie intake.)

Quoted message said:

"Reducing consumption of added sugars seems reasonable to me," Havel
says, "just as you should not consume too many calories from fat and
you should exercise regularly."

But industry groups urged consumers not to respond by avoiding any one
food ingredient. Audrae Erickson, president of the Corn Refiners
Association, notes that many of the studies used pure fructose rather
than the combination of fructose and glucose found in corn syrup.

"There are many sources for the obesity epidemic," Erickson says.
"There's no one single source of the obesity epidemic or the onslaught
of diabetes in America. But there are many contributing factors and no
scientific link to suggest that high-fructose corn syrup is a
contributing factor."

Quoted message said:

Erickson says that research published in a 1993 supplement to the
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition suggests that there is no
evidence linking the syrup to the obesity epidemic.

What does play a role, she noted, "is the lack of physical exercise.
You can not discontinue the use of any one food or beverage and expect
tomorrow -- or even in 10 years from now -- to be thin without
increased physical activity."

That's a message being delivered not just by the food and beverage
industries, but also by the U.S. Surgeon General, the National Academy
of Sciences and the WHO, which also urged more physical activity -- an
hour a day of moderate-intensity activity, such as walking -- in its
report last week.·

---

TC

On 26 May 2005 12:00:59 -0700, TC wrote in
<news:[email hidden]> on
sci.med.nutrition :

Quoted message said:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A8003-2003Mar10?language=printer

Sweet but Not So Innocent?
High-Fructose Corn Syrup May Act More Like Fat Than Sugar in the Body

By Sally Squires
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, March 11, 2003; Page HE01

Quoted message said:

From fruit-flavored drinks to energy bars, a huge array of sweetened
foods and beverages crowds grocery shelves, vending machines,
restaurant menus, school lunches and kitchens. According to the latest
figures from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), consumption of
various sweeteners, often in calorie-dense foods and drinks, has risen
in the United States from an estimated 113 pounds per person in 1966 to
147 pounds in 2001.

Last week, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommended limiting
intake of added sugars found in food and drink to no more than 10
percent of daily calories,

And 10 percent of calories looks to me quite a lot, anyway.

Quoted message said:

a step the WHO said could help stop the
worldwide rise in obesity that is fueling the growth of such chronic
diseases as type 2 diabetes. The WHO recommendation is far stricter
than any that U.S. groups have produced.

_____On the Web_____

· Dietary Guidelines for Americans
· USDA: Is Intake of Added Sugars Associated With Dietary Quality?

_____From Our Advertisers_____

· Find health and fitness experts in the Washington area.

Free E-mail Newsletters
Lean Plate Club
See a Sample | Sign Up Now

But increasingly, it's not just the growing consumption of foods with
added sugars that concerns some nutrition experts. What has also
changed during the past four decades, the USDA figures show, is the
type of sweeteners consumed -- a trend that some studies suggest may
help to undermine appetite control and possibly play a role in weight
gain.

In 1966, refined sugar, also known as sucrose,

By the way, "brown sugar" is sucrose as well, isn't it?

Quoted message said:

held the No. 1 slot,
accounting for 86 percent of sweeteners used, according to the USDA.
Today, sweeteners made from corn are the leader, racking up $4.5
billion in annual sales and accounting for 55 percent of the sweetener
market. That switch largely reflects the steady growth of high-fructose
corn syrup, which climbed from zero consumption in 1966 to 62.6 pounds
per person in 2001.

Wow!

Quoted message said:

While soft drinks and fruit beverages such as lemonade are the leading
products containing high-fructose corn syrup, plenty of other items --
including cookies, gum, jams, jellies and baked goods -- also contain
this syrup. [For more information about which foods contain these and
other added sweeteners, see the Lean Plate Club column on Page F2.]

Made from corn starch, high-fructose corn syrup is a thick liquid that
contains two basic sugar building blocks, fructose and glucose, in
roughly equal amounts. Sucrose, most familiar to consumers as table
sugar, is a larger sugar molecule that breaks down into glucose and
fructose in the intestine during metabolism.

An advantage of high-fructose corn syrup is that it "tastes sweeter
than refined sugar," making it a popular ingredient for food
manufacturers because it enables them to use less, says George A. Bray,
former director of Louisiana State University's Pennington Biomedical
Research Center in Baton Rouge. As a liquid, the syrup is easier to
blend into beverages than refined sugar, according to the National Soft
Drink Association (NSDA). Industry taste tests suggested that consumers
liked food and drink with high-fructose corn syrup as much as refined
beet or cane sugar.

In the 1980s, manufacturing methods improved, prompting a boost in
production of high-fructose corn syrup and a drop in price to just
pennies below that of refined sugar. "While that may not sound like
much to the average consumer, when you consider how many pounds [the
soft drink industry buys], it was millions of dollars if not hundreds
of millions of dollars in savings," says Drew Davis, NSDA's vice
president for federal affairs.

The switch made economic sense and, as Davis notes, "back then, there
was no suggestion that high-fructose corn syrup was metabolized
differently" than other sugars. More recent research suggests, however,
that there may be some unexpected nutritional consequences of using the
syrup. "Fructose is absorbed differently" than other sugars, says Bray.
"It doesn't register in the body metabolically the same way that
glucose does."

For example, consumption of glucose kicks off a cascade of biochemical
reactions. It increases production of insulin by the pancreas, which
enables sugar in the blood to be transported into cells, where it can
be used for energy. It increases production of leptin, a hormone that
helps regulate appetite and fat storage, and it suppresses production
of another hormone made by the stomach, ghrelin, that helps regulate
food intake. It has been theorized that when ghrelin levels drop, as
they do after eating carbohydrates composed of glucose, hunger
declines.

Fructose is a different story. It "appears to behave more like fat with
respect to the hormones involved in body weight regulation," explains
Peter Havel, associate professor of nutrition at the University of
California, Davis. "Fructose doesn't stimulate insulin secretion. It
doesn't increase leptin production or suppress production of ghrelin.
That suggests that consuming a lot of fructose, like consuming too much
fat, could contribute to weight gain."

Well, not that I love added sugars, but... consuming *a lot* of *anything*
could contribute to weight gain.

And fructose is not just an "added sugar", it is also naturally found in
fruit... I don't drink pops and sweetened drinks, but I eat fruit.
Let's talk of *how much* fructose is too much, then. More than 40 grams
per meal?

Quoted message said:

Whether it actually does do this
is not known "because the studies have not been conducted," said Havel.

Another concern is the action of fructose in the liver, where it is
converted into the chemical backbone of trigylcerides more efficiently
than glucose. Like low-density lipoprotein -- the most damaging form of
cholesterol -- elevated levels of trigylcerides are linked to an
increased risk of heart disease. A University of Minnesota study
published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition in 2000 found
that in men, but not in women, fructose "produced significantly higher
[blood] levels" than did glucose. The researchers, led by J.P Bantle,
concluded that "diets high in added fructose may be undesirable,
particularly for men."

That makes sense to me.
But I wouldn't want a diet high in sucrose either.

If I were to add *small amounts* of some sugar [let's say in a cake, where
you actually *need* some sugar], perhaps I'd go for fructose rather than
for sucrose, because 1) you need a bit less to taste sweet, 2) even small
amounts of glucose increase production of insulin, and we don't want too
sharp an increase of insulin when we eat a slice of cake, do we?... What do
you say?

Then, I believe it's still different if you are a sportsman and you spend
lots of energy, then you need to restore it quickly... In that case sucrose
is best, am I right?

Quoted message said:

Other recent research suggests that fructose may alter the magnesium
balance in the body. That could, in turn, accelerate bone loss,
according to a USDA study published in 2000 in the Journal of the
American College of Nutrition.

In November, however, Havel and his colleagues published a review in
the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition that examined evidence from
multiple studies. They concluded that large quantities of fructose from
a variety of sources, including table sugar and high-fructose corn
syrup, induce insulin resistance, impair glucose tolerance, produce
high levels of insulin, boost a dangerous type of fat in the blood and
cause high blood pressure in animals. "The data in humans are less
clear," the team noted.

Others are skeptical that high-fructose corn syrup acts differently in
the body than table sugar. "I don't see it as a particular evil," says
Michael Jacobson, director of the Center for Science in the Public
Interest and a vocal critic of soft drinks, which he dubs "liquid
candy." "It wouldn't make much difference if soft drinks were sweetened
with sucrose [table sugar] or high-fructose corn syrup."

Well, let's just not drink lots of soft drinks with added sugar.
Unsweetened fresh orange juice is naturally sweet 🙂

Quoted message said:

Until scientists sort out the details, many nutrition experts say it
makes sense to not surpass the 10 percent recommendation of the WHO. On
a 2,000-calorie intake, that works out to about 200 calories -- roughly
the amount found in a 16.9-ounce bottle of soda or about eight Chunky
Chips Ahoy cookies or about an three ounces of plain M&M's. (Last year,
the National Academy of Sciences suggested that added sugars should not
exceed 25 percent of daily calories -- about 500 calories on a
2,000-calorie intake.)

Quoted message said:

"Reducing consumption of added sugars seems reasonable to me," Havel
says, "just as you should not consume too many calories from fat and
you should exercise regularly."

But industry groups urged consumers not to respond by avoiding any one
food ingredient. Audrae Erickson, president of the Corn Refiners
Association, notes that many of the studies used pure fructose rather
than the combination of fructose and glucose found in corn syrup.

"There are many sources for the obesity epidemic," Erickson says.
"There's no one single source of the obesity epidemic or the onslaught
of diabetes in America. But there are many contributing factors and no
scientific link to suggest that high-fructose corn syrup is a
contributing factor."

Quoted message said:

Erickson says that research published in a 1993 supplement to the
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition suggests that there is no
evidence linking the syrup to the obesity epidemic.

What does play a role, she noted, "is the lack of physical exercise.
You can not discontinue the use of any one food or beverage and expect
tomorrow -- or even in 10 years from now -- to be thin without
increased physical activity."

That's a message being delivered not just by the food and beverage
industries, but also by the U.S. Surgeon General, the National Academy
of Sciences and the WHO, which also urged more physical activity -- an
hour a day of moderate-intensity activity, such as walking -- in its
report last week.·

---

TC

One of the best combinations for energy and health is Rapadura (which
is totally unrefined cane sugar, high in vitamin A, postassium, etc. -
unlike other sugar products) and unrefined coconut oil. I use these
two items, along with spices and organic pastry flour (and baking soda)
to create my own bread products. I eat it with dark chocolate,
strawberry preserves, and organic butter, as well as a coffee pudding
that is my own invention. Sugar and fat is easy on the body, as long
as you use the unrefined sugar and stay away from highly unsaturated
fat sources, which are used in almost everything these days,
unfortunately. You also need good protein sources - my main ones are
organic, raw cheese, organic eggs (boiled lightly), and plain, whole
milk, organic yogurt. High antioxdiant foods, like berries, are good
and tasty additions. The root cause of "chronic disease" is free
radical mediated, and it's easy to design a tasty diet that
accomplishes this. These "researchers" and "scientists" are playing
the fiddle while Rome burns, and they are generally unfamiliar with
previous scientific literature. There are so many studies that are
just repetitions of ones done a few years, or even a few months
earlier, and yet they act like they made some sort of earth-shatter
discovery. Notice how you hear about these things, but nothing ever
happens. How many times do you hear about some "dramatic
breakthrough," and yet how many "diseases" have been "cured" over the
last couple of decades? Fortunately, once you gain an understading of
free radical damage, you can make meaningful distinctions, like
realizing that the browning of a cut apple with not harm you, but
cooking with highly unsaturated oils produces incredibly toxic
substances.

On 26 May 2005 21:50:42 -0700, montygram wrote in
<news:[email hidden]> on
sci.med.nutrition :

Quoted message said:

One of the best combinations for energy and health is Rapadura (which
is totally unrefined cane sugar, high in vitamin A, postassium, etc. -

Ok, but that's sucrose anyway...
If I look for vit A and potassium, I can find them in fruits and
vegetables, for instance... who neeeds lots of added sugar?

Quoted message said:

unlike other sugar products) and unrefined coconut oil. I use these
two items, along with spices and organic pastry flour (and baking soda)
to create my own bread products. I eat it with dark chocolate,

Yum! Pure dark chocolate 🙂
What chocolate do you like best?

Quoted message said:

strawberry preserves, and organic butter, as well as a coffee pudding
that is my own invention. Sugar and fat is easy on the body, as long
as you use the unrefined sugar and stay away from highly unsaturated
fat sources, which are used in almost everything these days,
unfortunately.

Well, I use olive oil, that is monounsatured.

Quoted message said:

You also need good protein sources - my main ones are
organic, raw cheese, organic eggs (boiled lightly), and plain, whole
milk, organic yogurt. High antioxdiant foods, like berries, are good
and tasty additions. The root cause of "chronic disease" is free
radical mediated, and it's easy to design a tasty diet that
accomplishes this. These "researchers" and "scientists" are playing
the fiddle while Rome burns,

Is it? Let me look outside my window. No, it's not burning, but today it's
hot anyway 😉

Quoted message said:

and they are generally unfamiliar with
previous scientific literature. There are so many studies that are
just repetitions of ones done a few years, or even a few months
earlier, and yet they act like they made some sort of earth-shatter
discovery. Notice how you hear about these things, but nothing ever
happens. How many times do you hear about some "dramatic
breakthrough," and yet how many "diseases" have been "cured" over the
last couple of decades? Fortunately, once you gain an understading of
free radical damage, you can make meaningful distinctions, like
realizing that the browning of a cut apple with not harm you, but
cooking with highly unsaturated oils produces incredibly toxic
substances.

Well, I never fry 🙂
But what about browning onions and other vegetables on low heat, with a
tiny bit of oil...?

--
Enrico C
==================================
it-alt.politica.referendum
(I si e i no che dividono gli italiani)

One problem is that the simple and inexpensvie experiments needed to
see what is healthy and what isn't haven't been done. A few months
ago, somebody here posted that steamed salmon had much higher oxidized
cholesterol in it than other common cooking methods. Nobody could ever
know that it would be so much higher without the experiment being done,
so I developmed my own cooking methods to be sure that there would be
very low exposure. I'm currently writing a book that will include that
information. Basically, you can boil your meat or eggs, then get a
sauce together on low heat - I use butter for the fat source in the
sauce, except for Asian dishes, which contain coconut oil (or you could
use no fat if you prefer). Then you just put the meat or eggs in the
sauce and blend them together until they have the consistency you want.

As for chocolate, I'd recommend the ones that say 70% cocoa mass (or
higher), but if it's close, like 67%, that's okay.

I just use the Rapadura for taste. For example, I make an egg salad
with yogurt, and without the Rapadura I can honestly say that it tastes
lousy.