Video & Multimedia

jeff47

(26,549 posts)

19. Well, you corrected the names. But there's still the larger problem.

Mon May 19, 2014, 01:25 PM

May 2014

HFCS and sucrose follow exactly the same metabolic pathway.

In both cases, the body is absorbing and metabolizing a 50/50 mixture of glucose and fructose.

The obesity you cite isn't caused by switching from sucrose to HFCS. It's caused by eating too many calories for the level of activity. A typical lunch in Latin America has many fewer calories than a typical lunch in the US, for example.

We have a long, long history of people propping up a single chemical as the obesity demon. Until recently, it was fat. Now it's sugar, and especially HFCS. Just buy their book and exciting new diet plan, and you'll be skinny by removing one single chemical.

There really is no obesity demon chemical. It's calories in versus calories burned. Some chemicals make that equation easier to balance, but the important thing is still the underlying equation.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

53 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Is Sugar A Toxin? Dr. Robert Lustig [View all] mother earth May 2014 OP

I'm not a fan of refined sugar, but Erich Bloodaxe BSN May 2014 #1

Sorry, have to go with the medical expert on this on. Fructose is poison, as explained. Fred Sanders May 2014 #2

There's more than one medical expert out there. Erich Bloodaxe BSN May 2014 #3

Interesting link, thanks Babel_17 May 2014 #11

I have to agree with you. Frustratedlady May 2014 #4

Bingo. Erich Bloodaxe BSN May 2014 #9

Yeah, it's not like he's selling anything... jeff47 May 2014 #16

Obesity is caused by many things, and we are learning as time goes by that, yes, anything and mother earth May 2014 #22

Take a look at your own response. jeff47 May 2014 #24

MO's "Let's Move" campaign was about exercising, her issue and one she has spoken about mother earth May 2014 #34

It's not as simple as calories in vs. calories out thesquanderer May 2014 #29

Fructose in fruit Brainstormy May 2014 #6

I'll agree with you there, Erich Bloodaxe BSN May 2014 #8

This is what bothers me here. Instead of calling out HFCS as the major culprit, the article makes DesertDiamond May 2014 #10

He says exactly that in the interview. nt mother earth May 2014 #18

Nope. jeff47 May 2014 #14

jeff77, nice to hear from someone on this topic who knows... Nitram May 2014 #21

We need to eat some fruit so we don't get scurvy. mucifer May 2014 #41

You're absolutely correct. HuckleB May 2014 #12

Our medical community is so far behind it's a national disgrace. Baitball Blogger May 2014 #5

If you're going to claim we are behind, you need to get the chemistry right. jeff47 May 2014 #15

Thank you for the correction. I will amend my post, Baitball Blogger May 2014 #17

Well, you corrected the names. But there's still the larger problem. jeff47 May 2014 #19

I'm not as concerned with obesity as I am with diabetes. Baitball Blogger May 2014 #20

And those large meals matched lots of physical activity jeff47 May 2014 #23

Going to your last point, Baitball Blogger May 2014 #25

You are free to feel anything jeff47 May 2014 #26

You bring nothing to the table that will prove helpful to people Baitball Blogger May 2014 #31

Being a minority does not change how you process sucrose. jeff47 May 2014 #42

You obviously have not been keeping up with the latest research. Baitball Blogger May 2014 #43

Nope. You're talking about something different jeff47 May 2014 #44

So far, all you have is an opinion. Baitball Blogger May 2014 #46

No, I have lots and lots of research jeff47 May 2014 #47

The article I posted is recent. Baitball Blogger May 2014 #48

And the article you posted is still not what I'm talking about. jeff47 May 2014 #49

You are not convincing. Baitball Blogger May 2014 #50

"sweeping conclusions that affect everyone's lives" trotsky May 2014 #27

Where is the contradiction? Baitball Blogger May 2014 #33

I guess it's OK for your to make sweeping conclusions then. No biggie. trotsky May 2014 #36

You're missing a major factor in the dialogue. Baitball Blogger May 2014 #37

Oh I don't dispute a genetic predisposition for diabetes. trotsky May 2014 #38

It appears that no one is producing evidence to support their positions. Baitball Blogger May 2014 #40

I'm sure you do. n/t trotsky May 2014 #51

though sugar per se doesn't cause diabetes thesquanderer May 2014 #28

Sugar doesn't cause diabetes...but the ADA recommends Baitball Blogger May 2014 #30

Right. But was that supposed to be as snarky as it sounded? thesquanderer May 2014 #32

No one disagrees with the amount of consumption being a problem. Baitball Blogger May 2014 #35

Oxygen is a toxin, too. Nitram May 2014 #7

And water is physically addictive Android3.14 May 2014 #13

High frucose corn grown with certain fertilizers are polynomial May 2014 #39

To be clear, are you claiming that our food is all adulterated with anhydrous ammonia? enki23 May 2014 #52

Compelling discussion mother earth! littlemissmartypants May 2014 #45

Chocolate has definite health benefits... mother earth May 2014 #53