51–60 of 110 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Rare and seasonal? It literally does not spoil on any timescale that matters.
Its production is seasonal. Availability follows. Ok?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I actually watched an interesting video on this last night by Adam Ragusea, who hosts a cooking channel and likes to dabble in the food science side of things on occasion - https://youtu.be/DEKrfvgPGDY It looks to be the case that in the case of HFCS high ratios of Fructose to Glucose can cause issues because of excess free Fructose. If the balance between the two is maintained, things may be less problematic.
HFCS is a misnomer. It's just 55% fructose and 45% glucose. Whereas sucrose is exactly 50% fructose and 50% glucose. HFCS is a health problem, but not not more so than sugar already. Balancing free fructose does not matter because by eating starch, you are already intaking much more glucose than fructose.
To be precise, HFCS-55 is 55% fructose. Commonly used varieties of HFCS include HFCS-42, HFCS-55, and HFCS-90, containing the percentages of fructose indicated by the number, though HFCS-55 is the most commonly used form due to its near-equivalency in sweetness to sucrose.
The amount of free fructose should not be dismissed so readily, as starch requires breakdown into glucose via amylase enzymes, thus "flattening the curve" of its concentration in the blood. Free fructose is rapidly absorbed and the resultant relatively high concentrations induce specific negative effects in the body:
"The activity of fructokinase (KHK) is different from the other hexokinases by virtue of the fact that it induces transient ATP depletion in the cell. The mechanism is due to the fact that fructokinase (KHK) rapidly phosphorylates fructose to fructose-1-phosphate resulting in marked ATP depletion. The activity of fructokinase (KHK) is not subject to feed-back inhibition such as is the case for glucose metabolism, thus the ATP depletion is profound. Since the majority of fructose metabolism occurs in the liver, the effects of this ATP depletion are exerted on numerous important hepatic metabolic processes." (https://themedicalbiochemistrypage.org/fructose-metabolism/)
Furthermore:
"In contrast to the anorexigenic effect of hypothalamic glucose metabolism, the metabolism of fructose in the brain exerts an orexigenic effect. ... Since hypothalamic fructose metabolism bypasses this important regulatory step its metabolism rapidly depletes ATP in the hypothalamus. ... Therefore, although glucose and fructose utilize the same signaling pathway to control food intake they act in an inverse manner and have reciprocal effects on the level of hypothalamic malonyl-CoA." (ibid.)
Which is to say, free fructose promotes hunger while starch/glucose metabolism stimulates satiety.
For anyone interested in a detailed explanation of fructose metabolism (and why it's bad for you), I'd highly recommend these two talks by Robert Lustig on the subject. The first one is about how the body reacts to fructose, and the second video is a follow-up that emphasizes how fructose has contributed to the obesity epidemic in the US and elsewhere. https://youtu.be/dBnniua6-oM https://youtu.be/ceFyF9px20Y
But don’t all other primates eat lots of fruit? Why are humans unique?
For anyone interested in a detailed explanation of fructose metabolism (and why it's bad for you), I'd highly recommend these two talks by Robert Lustig on the subject. The first one is about how the body reacts to fructose, and the second video is a follow-up that emphasizes how fructose has contributed to the obesity epidemic in the US and elsewhere. https://youtu.be/dBnniua6-oM https://youtu.be/ceFyF9px20Y
But don’t all other primates eat lots of fruit? Why are humans unique?
This is a little mixing of apples and oranges but the high fructose we tend to eat are much higher than primates that eat fruit.
For anyone interested in a detailed explanation of fructose metabolism (and why it's bad for you), I'd highly recommend these two talks by Robert Lustig on the subject. The first one is about how the body reacts to fructose, and the second video is a follow-up that emphasizes how fructose has contributed to the obesity epidemic in the US and elsewhere. https://youtu.be/dBnniua6-oM https://youtu.be/ceFyF9px20Y
But don’t all other primates eat lots of fruit? Why are humans unique?
For anyone interested in a detailed explanation of fructose metabolism (and why it's bad for you), I'd highly recommend these two talks by Robert Lustig on the subject. The first one is about how the body reacts to fructose, and the second video is a follow-up that emphasizes how fructose has contributed to the obesity epidemic in the US and elsewhere. https://youtu.be/dBnniua6-oM https://youtu.be/ceFyF9px20Y
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Curious: Rare and seasonal how? Most honey lasts for years or decades if willing to put up with some crystallization. All things in moderation... . A dab of honey in tea once a day can't be that many micromorts.
Its production is seasonal. Availability follows. Ok?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If we (in the US) could end corn subsidies, use of HFCS in food production would probably fall naturally as other sweeteners were able to compete again for the cheapest sweetener.
Sugar derived from cane and beet and honey are exactly as bad for your health as high-fructose corn syrup.
While equivalent (calorically) amounts of other sugars certainly isn't good for you, there is a growing consensus that fructose (and thus HFCS, and probably honey, though I'm not aware of studies to the latter effect) is subtly different enough to be worse for most people over the long term, even when taking into consideration that less is needed because it is sweeter.
The ratio of fructose to glucose seems to be one important factor, another is whether the fructose and glucose are bound together into sucrose (it doesn't seem like this paper addresses the latter point).
HFCS and honey both have a higher amount of fructose than glucose, and contain these components mostly in 'free' form, sugarcane and beets produce mostly sucrose, in which the ratio of fructose to glucose is equal and the sugars are mostly bound together into sucrose.
Although the effect of these differences is subtle, other research suggests that chronic consumption of fructose in free form causes changes in insulin response that in turn are responsible for both reduced satiation and weight gain (assuming sufficient calories). Caloric restriction can counteract the weight gain, but not the other changes.
The mechnisms for this have not been entirely clear. This paper describes some changes in cellular preference for some metabolic pathways over others that among other things in turn promote inflammatory responses. As a layman it is tempting to 'connect the dots', as inflammation is (generally, and indirectly) implicated (by other research) in various conditions, but this paper by itself doesn't actually do that. Though it does seem like an important step forward to doing so.
There are a whole host of questions this opens up, like "is this inflammatory response observable in particular tissues (pancreatic, white vs. brown fat, etc.)?", "how is this inflammatory response linked to changes in insulin response (in various tissues)?", "what else does this change in preference for particular metabolic pathways affect?", "what other alternate metabolic pathways might be affected by differences in nutrient ratios, or by the presence or absence of other nutrients?", "Does this help explain the difference in effect of consuming some foods in processed form (eg. Eating fruit vs. drinking juice)?", etc.
Intriguing and suggestive questions to be sure, but as yet unanswered (particularly by this paper in isolation).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No research done, but I suspect it's because of the sheer amount that we consume, at least in the US due to the use of corn syrup in packaged foods.
Sure, but that’s not the question. Presumably gorging on HFCS would be bad for chimps, too. I was asking about the claim that “fructose” is unhealthy.
Whole fruit contains vitamins, minerals, fiber, and significant amounts of water. Whole fruit contains intact plant cell walls. It's very important to eat intact plant cell walls, but that's difficult to determine from studies of isolated nutrients. Because of the bulkiness caused by water and fiber in whole fruit, it's difficult to eat large amounts. For example, it takes about four oranges to make a glass of orange juice. Most people would not eat four oranges, but most people could easily drink 1 or more glasses of juice.
The wild fruit eaten by primates has less sugar and more fiber compared to fruit cultivated by humans. Human cultivated foods, including plants and livestock, are much richer compared to wild plants and animals, having more fat, sugar, starch, and calories in general, than what could evolve in the absence of pest control.
Humans have evolved quite differently than other primates. We have a rare ability to digest large amounts of starch, a capability shared almost exclusively with rats and pigs. It's difficult to compare our diets.
Primates consume significant amounts of foliage (leaves and such). You probably should too, green leaves are very excellent for your health.
For anyone interested in a detailed explanation of fructose metabolism (and why it's bad for you), I'd highly recommend these two talks by Robert Lustig on the subject. The first one is about how the body reacts to fructose, and the second video is a follow-up that emphasizes how fructose has contributed to the obesity epidemic in the US and elsewhere. https://youtu.be/dBnniua6-oM https://youtu.be/ceFyF9px20Y
But don’t all other primates eat lots of fruit? Why are humans unique?