What's going on in Spain?
I guess a lot of people is abandoning traditional "mediterranean diet", but not to adopt something healthier.
Sugar Rush: The progress of a disease over thirty years
11–20 of 27 posts
Re: Sugar Rush: The progress of a disease over thirty years
#12The difference between North America and Western Europe is quite striking. Is that really mostly due to HFCS?
Almost certainly due to lower obesity rates, rather than the negligible difference between normal sugar and HFCS.
Fructose is much more damaging than glucose. So HFCS is much more damaging than regular sugar (glucose-fructose).
And more importantly, the widespread use of HFCS is a major concern. It's too cheap, it's too legal, and it's a toxin. There's absolutely no use for it in our bodies.
Yes, obesity is the problem. HFCS can be blamed as a significant contributor to the obesity issue.
Re: Sugar Rush: The progress of a disease over thirty years
#13The difference between North America and Western Europe is quite striking. Is that really mostly due to HFCS?
Almost certainly due to lower obesity rates, rather than the negligible difference between normal sugar and HFCS.
The problem with HFCS is not its biological impact. It's the economic impact. By heavily subsidizing corn, we have made sugar (via HFCS) incredibly cheap, which makes it easy to use as an additive.
Re: Sugar Rush: The progress of a disease over thirty years
#14Always surprised to see how diabetes coverage in the popular press blurs the difference between Type I ("juvenile") and Type II ("adult onset").
I totally agree, but I think calling Type 1 "juvenile" is misleading as well. My wife developed Type 1 when she was in her twenties.
Re: Sugar Rush: The progress of a disease over thirty years
#15Earlier quoted context omitted.
Almost certainly due to lower obesity rates, rather than the negligible difference between normal sugar and HFCS.
Fructose is much more damaging than glucose. So HFCS is much more damaging than regular sugar (glucose-fructose). And more importantly, the widespread use of HFCS is a major concern. It's too cheap, it's too legal, and it's a toxin. There's absolutely no use for it in our bodies. Yes, obesity is the problem. HFCS can be blamed as a significant contributor to the obesity issue. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-…
Agreed on fructose being the more damaging component. However, sucrose (regular table sugar) is one glucose and one fructose, so 50% fructose. HFCS, however, is typically 55% fructose, and I believe used in about the same quantity. So not that different. The real issue is simply amount consumed, and not what form it was in.
Re: Sugar Rush: The progress of a disease over thirty years
#16Earlier quoted context omitted.
Almost certainly due to lower obesity rates, rather than the negligible difference between normal sugar and HFCS.
Fructose is much more damaging than glucose. So HFCS is much more damaging than regular sugar (glucose-fructose). And more importantly, the widespread use of HFCS is a major concern. It's too cheap, it's too legal, and it's a toxin. There's absolutely no use for it in our bodies. Yes, obesity is the problem. HFCS can be blamed as a significant contributor to the obesity issue. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-…
HFCS and regular sugar have a very similar proportion of glucose:fructose.
The kind of HFCS used in soft drinks is 55% fructose and 42% glucose, while sucrose (sugar) is 50% fructose and 50% glucose. The kind of HFCS used in baked products is 42% fructose and 53% glucose.
Re: Sugar Rush: The progress of a disease over thirty years
#17The difference between North America and Western Europe is quite striking. Is that really mostly due to HFCS?
There's a wide difference in overall sugar intake between the US and countries in Europe.
US: 152 lbs. per capita UK: 80 lbs. per capita Canada: 117 lbs. per capita Russia: 112 lbs. per capita France: 79 lbs. per capita
You can play around with these numbers at Wolfram Alpha:
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=sugar+consumption+per+c...
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=sugar+consumption+per+c...
Re: Sugar Rush: The progress of a disease over thirty years
#18I'm always suspicious of "percent change" data that isn't supplemented with absolute values. If there was a big change for the worse, does that mean they used to be good and are now normal or that they used to be normal and are now bad? And is the value high enough to even make the change meaningful? You have the same problem with any other change. It just seems to raise more questions than it answers.
Re: Sugar Rush: The progress of a disease over thirty years
#19Always surprised to see how diabetes coverage in the popular press blurs the difference between Type I ("juvenile") and Type II ("adult onset").
I totally agree, but I think calling Type 1 "juvenile" is misleading as well. My wife developed Type 1 when she was in her twenties.
Similarly, it's become possible for children to become Type II diabetics, which coincides with a massive increase in obesity (probably both caused by a root cause).
Re: Sugar Rush: The progress of a disease over thirty years
#20I'm always suspicious of "percent change" data that isn't supplemented with absolute values. If there was a big change for the worse, does that mean they used to be good and are now normal or that they used to be normal and are now bad? And is the value high enough to even make the change meaningful? You have the same problem with any other change. It just seems to raise more questions than it answers.
You can get some raw data from Wolfram Alpha:
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=United+States%2C+United...