I've no sympathy for the HFCS folk, but this is not believable:
"Our bodies have been adapted over the years to metabolize sugar, which is natural,” Mr. Royster says. “But the body doesn’t know what to do with high-fructose corn syrup.”
It may be that large doses of HFCS are worse than large doses of sugar (table sugar, by the way, has almost as much fructose as HFCS), but the body is adapted to large quantities of neither one.
The link below highlights the pushback from the market place as folk begin to make their mistrust of HFCS known to food manufacturers. I hope those folk don't quit pushing and learning until they figure out that all sugars are dangerous at present US consumption rates, and that most starches are nearly as dangerous as sugars, and then keep digging to learn about the unsustainable nature of our current food production industry, and about the benefits of grass finished beef ... etc!
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/02/business/02syrup.html
It is true that sugar is dangerous, but there is some evidence that HFCS is more dangerous...the fructose appears to be more available more quickly. Rats feed both seem to fare much worse on the fructose.
ReplyDeleteCharles, a previous post covered at least one of those studies - http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/goodbye-fructose.html. I don't think we're in disagreement - my disagreement is with the idea that non-fructose sugars are 'natural.' The issue, obviously, is quantity. HFCS is not natural, but isn't any more unnatural than table sugar, for example. Thanks for weighing in.
ReplyDelete