Fructose=Poison

The Druids Grove combined Off Topic Forum. Politics, science, random oddities - discuss them all here. - Low Moderation
User avatar
Zute
Posts: 162
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 8:50 pm

Re: Fructose=Poison

Post by Zute » Sun Apr 24, 2011 12:03 pm

Fyyr wrote:
Zute wrote: I might have said sucrose and HFCS are pretty close to being the same thing, one very nearly as bad as the other..
What is the difference between them?

Besides sucrose predominantly coming from sugar cane or beets. And HFCS coming from corn. That is.

That is. They both contain the same relative amount of fructose.
Only that HFCS is slightly higher in fructose. Sucrose is a disacchride, a fructose and a glucose molecule joined together. Doubt it makes any difference to the body at all because we manufacturer the enzyme that splits them. I know a lot of people think that HFCS is unholy and fructose found in fruit, honey, agave syrup is different somehow, but I don't subscribe to that belief. However, there have been reports of mecury in HFCS, but that's due to manufacturing sloppiness.

I don't believe there's anything to be gained from substituting sugar for HFCS in soda and juice and the rest of the garbage food people consume. One is just as bad as the other... well, maybe HFCS is just a tad worse, what with possible mercury and slightly higher fructose.
And less actual fructose, than say, honey or watermelon. Or an orange.
Eh? I didn't understand the comparison.

Any fructose you consume beyond your body's ability to turn it into glucose, is stored as fat in your liver. Not a good thing! And with people consuming the amounts of fructose they are, it is no wonder even kids are getting fatty liver disease these days... and type II diabetes, etc.
Formerly known as Panamah

User avatar
Tudamorf
Posts: 369
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 2:45 am
Location: San Francisco

Re: Fructose=Poison

Post by Tudamorf » Sun Apr 24, 2011 1:13 pm

Zute wrote:I know a lot of people think that HFCS is unholy and fructose found in fruit is different somehow, but I don't subscribe to that belief.
The fructose itself isn't different, but the packaging (which affects the rate of absorption into the body, satiety, and nutritional value) and the total dose are different between a can of Coke and a serving of fruit. Granted, some fruits are more sugary and less nutritious than others, but in general the comparison holds.

I know the video tries to place all the blame on fructose and plays down the fact that (a) people are just eating more, (b) what they're eating is refined/processed garbage, and (c) they don't exercise. But on that point, he's simply wrong.

If you eat even slightly more than you should per day, you are going to get fatter over time.

If you eat fast-absorbing foods with a high glycemic load, they will mess will your blood sugar levels, make you hungrier, and cause you to put on fat faster.

If you engage in regular intense exercise, it will increase your metabolic rate, increasing your daily calorie requirements.

Excess fructose exacerbates the problem by readily metabolizing into fat, but reducing it isn't going to make the problem go away unless you solve the other problems I mentioned. Those are the hard facts that any fat person has to seriously address.

User avatar
Tudamorf
Posts: 369
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 2:45 am
Location: San Francisco

Re: Fructose=Poison

Post by Tudamorf » Sun Apr 24, 2011 4:42 pm

Zute wrote:I've been following a mostly paleo diet for 5-6 years.
A paleolithic diet is based on wild animal meat (including all of the nutritious internal organs) and wild plants.

The junk meat you find in a supermarket today is not even remotely similar to the wild meat your ancestors ate.

Many domesticated plants that are grown today are also far less nutritious versions of their wild ancestors, as they are often selectively bred to increase size and sugar/starch content, not nutritional value. (There are some exceptions, like dark leafy greens.)

A true paleolithic diet would require a suitable area for hunting and gathering, and it would be a full-time job collecting your food. Or you would have to pay a lot of money to get someone else to do it for you.

So yes, limiting grains and milk may be better for you, but don't sit there eating pork chops and Russet potatoes from Safeway and pretend that it's a "paleolithic diet". It isn't.

User avatar
Zute
Posts: 162
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 8:50 pm

Re: Fructose=Poison

Post by Zute » Sun Apr 24, 2011 5:13 pm

I'm not trying to reenact a paleolithic person's environment, that'd be about impossible. I just get as close as I reasonably can with the budget and time that I have. It's made an enormous difference in my health by doing things like eliminating grains and dairy products.

I'm not averse to eating organ meats. In fact, I grew up eating kidney, heart, tongue and liver. It was my Mom's idea of health food way back then. Perhaps she wasn't so far off base. They're a lot harder to find these days, now that everyone only eats muscle meat. Although I've found Asian markets are a great resource.

Potatoes definitely aren't paleo and they send my blood sugar into the stratosphere, so I don't eat them. I eat a lot of other veggies though. What we call yams in the US, they're actually sweet potatoes, but I can eat them occasionally and in moderation without them sending my BG into orbit. They're good in Thai curry. :D Strictly speaking, they're not paleo either, but I'm not fanatical.
Formerly known as Panamah

User avatar
Tudamorf
Posts: 369
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 2:45 am
Location: San Francisco

Re: Fructose=Poison

Post by Tudamorf » Sun Apr 24, 2011 5:46 pm

Zute wrote:I'm not averse to eating organ meats. In fact, I grew up eating kidney, heart, tongue and liver. It was my Mom's idea of health food way back then. Perhaps she wasn't so far off base. They're a lot harder to find these days, now that everyone only eats muscle meat. Although I've found Asian markets are a great resource.
But they're still domesticated animals, selectively bred to grow unnaturally, living in bad conditions, fed bad diets, and perpetually pumped up with drugs just to keep them alive. You don't really want to touch the liver of these animals, let alone eat them on a regular basis.

You simply cannot compare the nutritional value of a wild animal versus one from modern domestication.

Fish are the only wild animals that are regularly available to buy today, and even then most of the ones you see in supermarkets aren't wild but farmed, and the wild ones are often contaminated with toxins.

Hunters are the only ones getting the meat part of the paleolithic diet right, for the most part.

User avatar
Zute
Posts: 162
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 8:50 pm

Re: Fructose=Poison

Post by Zute » Sun Apr 24, 2011 6:17 pm

You simply cannot compare the nutritional value of a wild animal versus one from modern domestication.
Yes, because I don't have the laboratory or expertise to make those measurements.

Like I said. I get as close to eating the diet humans evolved to eat as I can. It's good enough, apparently, to have improved my health substantially from how I was eating before with lots of grains and dairy products.
Formerly known as Panamah

Post Reply