Diabetes type 2 and soda

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Bishop

Originally posted by: Insane3D
These studies go back and forth. Remember when nutrasweet came out...it was "safe" and didn't have the cancer causing affects of saccharin...now it turns out they do. There are studies every day that say something is bad, then a little while later they figure out they were wrong. I remember the whole ALAR and apples thing...it was so bad to eat apples, now it's bunk. They use to say eggs were bad, now it turns out they are good.

Nutrasweet (aspartame) has been proven perfectly fine for the general population (PKU patients excluded) in many independant studies.

Worried about the phenylalanine that's produced when aspartame is broken down?
Only 62mg are contained in 8oz of diet coke. Likewise, 8oz of milk contains over 400mg, and 3 oz of chizen contains over 1,000mg.

Worried about the methanol that's produced?
The metabolizing of many fruits produces more methanol than the metabolizing of aspartame. Methanol, in small amount, does absolutely no harm to the body.

The only bad thing about aspartame is the unfounded rumors.

EDIT: Oh, and the American Cancer Society disagrees with your claim that aspartame cause cancer.

I wonder if the urban myths surrounding Aspartame will ever die?

 

[Rudee]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: ElFenix
seems the guys fudged their own study

Whoops! Yep, looks like BS.

Again, another attempt to blame foods for the nations obesity problem falls flat on it's face.

Folks, sugary drinks and high fat foods were the NORM for 50+ years before the Obesity epidemic started. (High fat foods for hundreds of years) In fact, the obesity epidemic started at the same time low fat diets became popular and diet drinks were introduced.

It has FAR less to do with the types of foods we eat, than it has to do with our lifestyles. Our daily activities are FAR more sedentary and that in tern leads to far more munching.

America needs to get off it's ass and realize it needs to get off it's ass.

It's not the sugar, it's the Fructose, which is cheap replacement for sugar. Fructose is the evil.

 

[imported_Bishop]

Originally posted by: Rudee

It's not the sugar, it's the Fructose, which is cheap replacement for sugar. Fructose is the evil.

Fructose, aka levulose, is one of the most common natural sugars. Also know as fruit sugar, it's found naturally in...dun dun dun...fruits. Fructose makes up half of sucrose (table sugar). How is it a cheap replacement for something it is? It's not the sugar, it's the amount taken in.

 

[DougK62]

Soda is horrible stuff to be putting into your body, which is why in the other locked thread I mentioned that I'd be embarrassed to admit that I was drinking a ton of it like the OP.

 

[newnameman]

I don't drink anything carbonated. Can't stand it.

 

[Mr N8]

Originally posted by: blodhi74
last few months I have replaced soda with ice tea with lemon and cold water ..... dont feel like having a soda any more

Just stick to water. Lots of Iced Tea is a possible cause of kidney stones! Not fun.

 

[FoBoT]

*EDIT*

sounds like the tree huggers are at it again, oh brother

back to my snacky cakes

 

[djheater]

Originally posted by: Bryophyte

Originally posted by: myusername

Originally posted by: Bryophyte
It's the high fructose corn syrup. That stuff is poison to the human body. Cheap sh1t they're filling "convenience" foods with.

Is this hyperbole, or does the human body have a rougher time with it than e.g. cane sugar? Would be interested in any articles if you got em.

I need to do more research on this myself. I've read somewhere that our bodies don't handle high fructose corn syrup the same way we respond to cane sugar. I'll post what I learn when I've learned more.

IIRC High Fructose syrup has a higher glycemic load than other sugars... meaning that it increases your blood sugar more rapidly than other sugars.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Rudee

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: ElFenix
seems the guys fudged their own study

Whoops! Yep, looks like BS.

Again, another attempt to blame foods for the nations obesity problem falls flat on it's face.

Folks, sugary drinks and high fat foods were the NORM for 50+ years before the Obesity epidemic started. (High fat foods for hundreds of years) In fact, the obesity epidemic started at the same time low fat diets became popular and diet drinks were introduced.

It has FAR less to do with the types of foods we eat, than it has to do with our lifestyles. Our daily activities are FAR more sedentary and that in tern leads to far more munching.

America needs to get off it's ass and realize it needs to get off it's ass.

It's not the sugar, it's the Fructose, which is cheap replacement for sugar. Fructose is the evil.

Have any peer reviewed and repeated studies showing this?

I know this claim is passed around a lot, but I have yet to see one valid study proving this.

 

[imported_Bishop]

Originally posted by: djheater

Originally posted by: Bryophyte

Originally posted by: myusername

Originally posted by: Bryophyte
It's the high fructose corn syrup. That stuff is poison to the human body. Cheap sh1t they're filling "convenience" foods with.

Is this hyperbole, or does the human body have a rougher time with it than e.g. cane sugar? Would be interested in any articles if you got em.

I need to do more research on this myself. I've read somewhere that our bodies don't handle high fructose corn syrup the same way we respond to cane sugar. I'll post what I learn when I've learned more.

IIRC High Fructose syrup has a higher glycemic load than other sugars... meaning that it increases your blood sugar more rapidly than other sugars.

HFCS has a GI of 89 while sucrose is 92, glucose is 137, maltodextrin is 137, table sugar is 142
and maltose is 150. Fructose has the lowest at 32.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Bishop

Originally posted by: djheater

Originally posted by: Bryophyte

Originally posted by: myusername

Originally posted by: Bryophyte
It's the high fructose corn syrup. That stuff is poison to the human body. Cheap sh1t they're filling "convenience" foods with.

Is this hyperbole, or does the human body have a rougher time with it than e.g. cane sugar? Would be interested in any articles if you got em.

I need to do more research on this myself. I've read somewhere that our bodies don't handle high fructose corn syrup the same way we respond to cane sugar. I'll post what I learn when I've learned more.

IIRC High Fructose syrup has a higher glycemic load than other sugars... meaning that it increases your blood sugar more rapidly than other sugars.

HFCS has a GI of 89 while sucrose is 92, glucose is 137, maltodextrin is 137, table sugar is 142
and maltose is 150. Fructose has the lowest at 32.

Whoops again!

Man, the myths are falling like dominos in this thread.

 

[Rudee]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Rudee

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: ElFenix
seems the guys fudged their own study

Whoops! Yep, looks like BS.

Again, another attempt to blame foods for the nations obesity problem falls flat on it's face.

Folks, sugary drinks and high fat foods were the NORM for 50+ years before the Obesity epidemic started. (High fat foods for hundreds of years) In fact, the obesity epidemic started at the same time low fat diets became popular and diet drinks were introduced.

It has FAR less to do with the types of foods we eat, than it has to do with our lifestyles. Our daily activities are FAR more sedentary and that in tern leads to far more munching.

America needs to get off it's ass and realize it needs to get off it's ass.

It's not the sugar, it's the Fructose, which is cheap replacement for sugar. Fructose is the evil.

Have any peer reviewed and repeated studies showing this?

I know this claim is passed around a lot, but I have yet to see one valid study proving this.

Studies are out there if you look. One such study was done by Dr. John Yudkin, Chairman of the Dept of Nutrition at London's Queen Elizabeth College. His studies showed that Fructose causd blood levels of cholesterol and tryglycerides to nearly double when compared to Sucrose. (table sugar). Plenty of studies out there. Results have been pretty much the same.

Most of the new products on the shelves over the last 2 decades have been laden with fructose. Fruit juices, sodas, ketchup, snackbars... the list goes on and on. Around the same time fructose was moved into the north american food supply in large numbers, obesity has increased along with it.

 

[Rudee]

Originally posted by: Bishop

Originally posted by: djheater

Originally posted by: Bryophyte

Originally posted by: myusername

Originally posted by: Bryophyte
It's the high fructose corn syrup. That stuff is poison to the human body. Cheap sh1t they're filling "convenience" foods with.

Is this hyperbole, or does the human body have a rougher time with it than e.g. cane sugar? Would be interested in any articles if you got em.

I need to do more research on this myself. I've read somewhere that our bodies don't handle high fructose corn syrup the same way we respond to cane sugar. I'll post what I learn when I've learned more.

IIRC High Fructose syrup has a higher glycemic load than other sugars... meaning that it increases your blood sugar more rapidly than other sugars.

HFCS has a GI of 89 while sucrose is 92, glucose is 137, maltodextrin is 137, table sugar is 142
and maltose is 150. Fructose has the lowest at 32.

Fructose is a low GI, thus its considered safe for diabetics. However, it causes many other nasty things to happen to a body, resulting in bodyfat gain.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Rudee

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Rudee

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: ElFenix
seems the guys fudged their own study

Whoops! Yep, looks like BS.

Again, another attempt to blame foods for the nations obesity problem falls flat on it's face.

Folks, sugary drinks and high fat foods were the NORM for 50+ years before the Obesity epidemic started. (High fat foods for hundreds of years) In fact, the obesity epidemic started at the same time low fat diets became popular and diet drinks were introduced.

It has FAR less to do with the types of foods we eat, than it has to do with our lifestyles. Our daily activities are FAR more sedentary and that in tern leads to far more munching.

America needs to get off it's ass and realize it needs to get off it's ass.

It's not the sugar, it's the Fructose, which is cheap replacement for sugar. Fructose is the evil.

Have any peer reviewed and repeated studies showing this?

I know this claim is passed around a lot, but I have yet to see one valid study proving this.

Studies are out there if you look. One such study was done by Dr. John Yudkin, Chairman of the Dept of Nutrition at London's Queen Elizabeth College. His studies showed that Fructose causd blood levels of cholesterol and tryglycerides to nearly double when compared to Sucrose. (table sugar). Plenty of studies out there. Results have been pretty much the same.

Most of the new products on the shelves over the last 2 decades have been laden with fructose. Fruit juices, sodas, ketchup, snackbars... the list goes on and on. Around the same time fructose was moved into the north american food supply in large numbers, obesity has increased along with it.

I've seen the one study, and it is not peer reviewed nor has it been repeated. There is also NO scientific justification for them linking it to obesity. It's a LEAP.

As for the claim that HFCS has led to the obesity epidemic, it's silly. Correlation does not prove causation. The most likely cause is the drop in activity levels brought on by the onset of cable TV, video games and the internet. Sedentary lifestyles also lead to munching.

Weight gain is a case of taking in more calories than one burns. Not any evil foods.

Sugar is sugar:

http://www.techcentralstation.com/103103E.html

 

[Descartes]

Originally posted by: Bishop

Originally posted by: djheater

Originally posted by: Bryophyte

Originally posted by: myusername

Originally posted by: Bryophyte
It's the high fructose corn syrup. That stuff is poison to the human body. Cheap sh1t they're filling "convenience" foods with.

Is this hyperbole, or does the human body have a rougher time with it than e.g. cane sugar? Would be interested in any articles if you got em.

I need to do more research on this myself. I've read somewhere that our bodies don't handle high fructose corn syrup the same way we respond to cane sugar. I'll post what I learn when I've learned more.

IIRC High Fructose syrup has a higher glycemic load than other sugars... meaning that it increases your blood sugar more rapidly than other sugars.

HFCS has a GI of 89 while sucrose is 92, glucose is 137, maltodextrin is 137, table sugar is 142
and maltose is 150. Fructose has the lowest at 32.

Your numbers seem high, and glucose is the standard by which the glycemic index is derived; it's 100. The glycemic index of everything else is relative to that standard.

Also, sucrose is table sugar.

 

[Amused]

http://www.diabetesnet.com/diabetes_food_diet/glycemic_index.php

GI:

fructose 22

maltose 105

table sugar 64

honey 62

 

[Descartes]

Originally posted by: Amused
http://www.diabetesnet.com/diabetes_food_diet/glycemic_index.php

GI:

fructose 22

maltose 105

table sugar 64

honey 62

Much better.

 

[Rudee]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Rudee

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Rudee

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: ElFenix
seems the guys fudged their own study

Whoops! Yep, looks like BS.

Again, another attempt to blame foods for the nations obesity problem falls flat on it's face.

Folks, sugary drinks and high fat foods were the NORM for 50+ years before the Obesity epidemic started. (High fat foods for hundreds of years) In fact, the obesity epidemic started at the same time low fat diets became popular and diet drinks were introduced.

It has FAR less to do with the types of foods we eat, than it has to do with our lifestyles. Our daily activities are FAR more sedentary and that in tern leads to far more munching.

America needs to get off it's ass and realize it needs to get off it's ass.

It's not the sugar, it's the Fructose, which is cheap replacement for sugar. Fructose is the evil.

Have any peer reviewed and repeated studies showing this?

I know this claim is passed around a lot, but I have yet to see one valid study proving this.

Studies are out there if you look. One such study was done by Dr. John Yudkin, Chairman of the Dept of Nutrition at London's Queen Elizabeth College. His studies showed that Fructose causd blood levels of cholesterol and tryglycerides to nearly double when compared to Sucrose. (table sugar). Plenty of studies out there. Results have been pretty much the same.

Most of the new products on the shelves over the last 2 decades have been laden with fructose. Fruit juices, sodas, ketchup, snackbars... the list goes on and on. Around the same time fructose was moved into the north american food supply in large numbers, obesity has increased along with it.

I've seen the one study, and it is not peer reviewed nor has it been repeated. There is also NO scientific justification for them linking it to obesity. It's a LEAP.

As for the claim that HFCS has led to the obesity epidemic, it's silly. Correlation does not prove causation. The most likely cause is the drop in activity levels brought on by the onset of cable TV, video games and the internet. Sedentary lifestyles also lead to munching.

Weight gain is a case of taking in more calories than one burns. Not any evil foods.

Sugar is sugar:

http://www.techcentralstation.com/103103E.html

How can you say sugar is sugar when numerous studies have shown different sugars have different metabolic effects? And weight gain is not just a matter of calories in vs calories out. There is no set relationship between weight gain and calories. If you're saying all foods are basically the same, and that it's just a matter of calories consumed, then you are very wrong.

 

[imported_Bishop]

Originally posted by: Amused
http://www.diabetesnet.com/diabetes_food_diet/glycemic_index.php

GI:

fructose 22

maltose 105

table sugar 64

honey 62

http://optimalhealth.cia.com.au/gi17.html

Says something different...

SUGARS:

Fructose 32
Lactose 65
Honey 83
High fructose corn syrup 89
Sucrose 92
Glucose 137
Maltodextrin 137
Sugar, White 142
Glucose tablets 146
Maltose 150

 

[imported_Bishop]

Originally posted by: Descartes
Also, sucrose is table sugar.

Yes, and no. Sucrose is a 50% glucose/ 50% fructose, white (refined) table sugar is only 99.5% sucrose. For general use, sucrose=table sugar, but when you get technical, table sugar is not pure sucrose.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Rudee

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Rudee

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Rudee

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: ElFenix
seems the guys fudged their own study

Whoops! Yep, looks like BS.

Again, another attempt to blame foods for the nations obesity problem falls flat on it's face.

Folks, sugary drinks and high fat foods were the NORM for 50+ years before the Obesity epidemic started. (High fat foods for hundreds of years) In fact, the obesity epidemic started at the same time low fat diets became popular and diet drinks were introduced.

It has FAR less to do with the types of foods we eat, than it has to do with our lifestyles. Our daily activities are FAR more sedentary and that in tern leads to far more munching.

America needs to get off it's ass and realize it needs to get off it's ass.

It's not the sugar, it's the Fructose, which is cheap replacement for sugar. Fructose is the evil.

Have any peer reviewed and repeated studies showing this?

I know this claim is passed around a lot, but I have yet to see one valid study proving this.

Studies are out there if you look. One such study was done by Dr. John Yudkin, Chairman of the Dept of Nutrition at London's Queen Elizabeth College. His studies showed that Fructose causd blood levels of cholesterol and tryglycerides to nearly double when compared to Sucrose. (table sugar). Plenty of studies out there. Results have been pretty much the same.

Most of the new products on the shelves over the last 2 decades have been laden with fructose. Fruit juices, sodas, ketchup, snackbars... the list goes on and on. Around the same time fructose was moved into the north american food supply in large numbers, obesity has increased along with it.

I've seen the one study, and it is not peer reviewed nor has it been repeated. There is also NO scientific justification for them linking it to obesity. It's a LEAP.

As for the claim that HFCS has led to the obesity epidemic, it's silly. Correlation does not prove causation. The most likely cause is the drop in activity levels brought on by the onset of cable TV, video games and the internet. Sedentary lifestyles also lead to munching.

Weight gain is a case of taking in more calories than one burns. Not any evil foods.

Sugar is sugar:

http://www.techcentralstation.com/103103E.html

How can you say sugar is sugar when numerous studies have shown different sugars have different metabolic effects? And weight gain is not just a matter of calories in vs calories out. There is no set relationship between weight gain and calories. If you're saying all foods are basically the same, and that it's just a matter of calories consumed, then you are very wrong.

Maybe you should read my link?

Ironically, fructose, which is also known as fruit sugar, was once considered a healthier, "more natural" alternative to sucrose, that is, old-fashioned table sugar. Fructose is in such foods as fruits and vegetables, Jerusalem artichokes, the starch of corn kernels, and honey. It's the result of photosynthesis, the plants use of energy from sunshine. What could be more natural?

The name HFCS is a misnomer. It actually contains about the same amount of fructose as sucrose (ordinary table sugar). Sucrose is composed of two simple sugars, glucose and fructose in a 50-50 ratio, while HFCS contains 42 to 55 percent fructose, with the remaining percentage being mainly glucose. "Once absorbed, the body has no way of knowing whether a molecule of fructose came from sucrose, HFCS, honey or fruit," said Guy H. Johnson, Ph.D. of Johnson Nutrition Solutions LLC. "Since the proportion of glucose and fructose in HFCS and sucrose are similar, these two sweeteners are virtually indistinguishable by the body."

According to an International Food Information Council (IFIC) Review: Sweet Facts About Sugars and Health, "there are no nutritional differences among sugars. The body uses all types in the same way."

"Despite having been labeled as 'empty calories,' sugars are truly important compounds," said Anne L. Mardis, M.D., M.P.H. in a Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion report. All carbohydrates are broken down to simple sugars before being absorbed by the body; most are converted to glucose, the main fuel needed by all cells and the brain, she explained. Because simple sugars are all chemically identical, the body cannot distinguish between those from different sources, whether natural or added to foods.