Fructose is a simple sugar that is found naturally in most fruits and vegetables. The amount of naturally occurring fructose found in whole foods is small, and because there is evidence showing that small amounts of fructose do not raise blood sugar levels significantly, fructose has long been considered a good sugar and a healthy substitute for refined sugar. Enter high fructose corn syrup. Since it’s introduction, the amount of fructose consumed on a daily basis has skyrocketed, and with that, so has the fructose debate.
Ultimately, the fructose debate boils down to a single simple question: Is fructose good for you? Because the main source of fructose in the modern diet now comes from high fructose corn syrup, this product tends to be at the center of most debates.
High fructose corn syrup is a highly processed sugar that consists of both glucose and fructose. However, the amount of fructose in a single gram of high fructose corn syrup exceeds the amount of fructose found naturally in fresh fruits and vegetables.
For some, the issue is centered around process foods. The argument is that because high fructose corn syrup does not exist in nature, it cannot be called a natural product, and therefore is not to be considered healthy with the nutrition panel. To support this argument, studies reveal that the process by which corn is turned into high fructose corn syrup requires mercury. This process has led to trace amounts of mercury being found in H.F.C.S., substantiating the claim that it is not a healthy sweetener. In addition, it is argued that high fructose consumption leads to high density belly fat which has been linked to many health and medical issues.
Advocates of high fructose corn syrup claim that fructose causes no more unhealthy belly fat or obesity than other sweeteners, and that it contains no artificial ingredients. In fact, some studies show that the body breaks down glucose the same way it does fructose, and the two are equally safe. Instead of targeting fructose as the evil sweetener, some say, consumers should instead focus on reducing the amount of sugar in any form because it really isn’t healthy for you no matter what form it comes in.
I expect this debate will continue until public attention is turned to the next health debate, but in the meantime – what’s your stance? Check out our website!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
1 comment:
Hi,
My google alert for HFCS picked up your post. I preach the treachery of HFCS so my mission/bias is clear.
Is fructose good for you?
Please read the book, The Sugar Fix by Dr. Richard Johnson (2008).
You also might read the article by Dr Dana Flavin on "The Metabolic
Dangers of High Fructose Syrup".
The Corn Refiners Association claims that the ratio of fructose:
glucose in HFCS is about the same as table sugar (sucrose). But, have you considered the real ratio of the sugars in HFCS-55 which is used to sweeten many beverages and all national brands of soda. HFCS-55 is 55% fructose: 45% glucose. This appears to be quite close to the 50:50 ratio found in the disaccharide sucrose. That is, until you do the math.
55%:45% = 55/45 = 1.22.
This means that in every can of Coke (bottled in the USA), there is, comapred to glucose, 22% extra fructose. Considering that one third of our HFCS calories comes from sweetened beverages, that's a lot of extra fructose assaulting our livers. We wonder why we are fatter and sicker.
The CRA can claim all day long that both sucrose and HFCS have the same cal/g (true) and that once both are metabolized they
are recognized by the body as the same simple sugars (true), but they can't hide behind the math.
HFCS-55 presents the body with an imbalance of fructose>>glucose.
Remember, they designed the ratio!
For an extensive list of HFCS-free foods and beverages try StopHFCS.com. To your health!
Post a Comment