the sugar consiracy

Originally posted by finnegan
The BBC, a higly respected and almost parental source of advice to the British public, offers recipes to use corn syrup at http://www.bbc.co.uk/food/corn_syrup
[quote] Corn syrup recipes
A common ingredient in the US, corn syrup is made by adding enzymes to corn starch, which turns it into a thick syrup of dextrose, maltose and/or glucose. It comes in tw ...[text shortened]... to avoid eating it as it is squirted into so many different foods in utterly insane quantities?

It's not simply passive aggressive determination to resist being told what to eat and not eat... that's too easy of an appraisal to be meaningful, and it doesn't do anything to abate my suspicions. If someone told you that you're only being rebellious when you disagree with them, wouldn't that send up a red flag or two with you?

I don't disagree that sugar can be a problem, but my main point has more to do with a common sense approach when reading about or listening to 'experts' who may (or may not) know what they are talking about. I mean really, first coffee is bad for you and then no, it's not so bad and hey, it can actually be good for you if it wasn't so bad for you as well as neither being good or bad... so what should the average consumer believe when advice from experts consistently see saws back and forth like this?

As to your concern about all the crap that's squirted into processed foods, to each his own... I get mostly unprocessed or minimally processed foods and then fix it up the way I like it. This works for me and I don't have any serious health problems, but I wouldn't presume to tell anyone else what they should or shouldn't eat.

Originally posted by lemon lime
It's not simply passive aggressive determination to resist being told what to eat and not eat... that's too easy of an appraisal to be meaningful, and it doesn't do anything to abate my suspicions. If someone told you that you're only being rebellious when you disagree with them, wouldn't that send up a red flag or two with you?

I don't disagree that s ...[text shortened]... s health problems, but I wouldn't presume to tell anyone else what they should or shouldn't eat.

but my main point has more to do with a common sense approach when reading about or listening to 'experts' who may (or may not) know what they are talking about. I mean really, first coffee is bad for you and then no,

But most real experts don't say such unscientific rubbish like that. Unfortunately, it is only the relatively few bad apples that make sensational claims like that (like coffee can kill you) that get all the news media attention giving many laypeople the false impression that ALL, or at least most, of the experts say all this unscientific trash. This gives the vast majority of experts a bad reputation they ill deserve.

Incidental;
I looked at what the REAL science says about coffee and it doesn't say it is bad or good for you -and the REAL science NEVER ever said it was bad for you!
But REAL science says, in general, sugar is simply bad for you unless you keep your consumption of it at very low volumes.

What laypeople need to be advised to do is not to just trust whatever a said 'expert' says but always check what the REAL science says (which isn't too hard to do these days by looking up the real rigorous science research over the net) tallies with what that said 'expert' says just to check he isn't one of those tiny minority of experts that are idiotic, crazed, delusional or perhaps simply shamelessly willing to propagate any lie to serve his own purposes.

Originally posted by humy
Incidental;
I looked at what the REAL science says about coffee and it doesn't say it is bad or good for you -and the REAL science NEVER ever said it was bad for you!
But REAL science says, in general, sugar is simply bad for you unless you keep your consumption of it at very low volumes.

In general, all foods are bad for you in excess and there is a preferred volume that suits most people with some variation depending on your genetic makeup and current state of health.
Coffee affects the body in a number of ways which can be bad or good depending on circumstances. It is rare that people take so much coffee on a daily basis that it has really serious side effects. The main chemical of concern in coffee is caffeine and that can be obtained in much higher doses in 'energy drinks', where there is certainly quite serious risk of causing yourself harm.
I certainly agree that sugar should be kept to a minimum. It is, however, addictive and manufacturers know this. It also makes a good preservative which partly explains its extensive use.

Originally posted by twhitehead
In general, all foods are bad for you in excess and there is a preferred volume that suits most people with some variation depending on your genetic makeup and current state of health.
Coffee affects the body in a number of ways which can be bad or good depending on circumstances. It is rare that people take so much coffee on a daily basis that it has re ...[text shortened]... ufacturers know this. It also makes a good preservative which partly explains its extensive use.

Here is some real science about sugar: Fructose alters hundreds of genes specifically in the brain with implications for diabetes, hyper activity, and even Alzheimers:

Its a bad news good news thing: Although sugar changes genes in the brain, DHA from omega-3 oils reverses that damage, all of it.

http://medicalxpress.com/news/2016-04-fructose-hundreds-brain-genes-wide.html

Originally posted by sonhouse
Here is some real science about sugar: Fructose alters hundreds of genes specifically in the brain with implications for diabetes, hyper activity, and even Alzheimers:

Its a bad news good news thing: Although sugar changes genes in the brain, DHA from omega-3 oils reverses that damage, all of it.

http://medicalxpress.com/news/2016-04-fructose-hundreds-brain-genes-wide.html

I haven't looked at the paper. There is nothing wrong with fructose provided it's eaten in the fruit it was grown in. Where things go wrong is when the food industry uses it to replace the fat that isn't all that harmful with what amounts to pure energy. The current obesity epidemic is caused almost entirely by high fructose corn syrup and if that were banned people would lose weight. Eating fruit is perfectly safe, since it has all the other bits that balance it out. It's the attempt to "add value" by food companies that messes things up.

Originally posted by DeepThought
I haven't looked at the paper. There is nothing wrong with fructose [b]provided it's eaten in the fruit it was grown in. Where things go wrong is when the food industry uses it to replace the fat that isn't all that harmful with what amounts to pure energy. The current obesity epidemic is caused almost entirely by high fructose corn syrup and if t ...[text shortened]... s that balance it out. It's the attempt to "add value" by food companies that messes things up.[/b]

There is this from corn. com

The high-fructose fruits you should avoid include apples, cherries, mangoes, watermelon and pears. You can safely have moderate amounts of low-fructose fruits, such as honeydew melon, cantaloupe, bananas, blueberries, strawberries and oranges, if they are well spaced throughout the day.

They seem to be saying you shouldn't eat high fructose edibles.

And this, lists adverse effects of high fructose diets

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16366738

That is besides the effects found on genes in the brain.

Better get lots of DHA. (omega-3's)

Originally posted by sonhouse

They seem to be saying you shouldn't eat high fructose edibles.

If that is what they are saying, they are very wrong. There is absolutely NO evidence that consumption of moderate/small amounts of fructose is or probably is more harmful than exactly the same amount of other sugars.

And your link appears to confirm that with:

"...Although the long-term effects of fructose consumption have not been adequately studied in humans, ..."

Of course there is plenty of evidence that excessive consumption of it is extremely harmful to health; but that is equally true for ANY type of sugar.

And there is thus NO evidence that, specifically because of fructose, you should avoid (for optimum health) some fruits (such as apples) in favor of other fruits (such as bananas) ; they are talking total rubbish.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Here is some real science about sugar: Fructose alters hundreds of genes specifically in the brain with implications for diabetes, hyper activity, and even Alzheimers:

Its a bad news good news thing: Although sugar changes genes in the brain, DHA from omega-3 oils reverses that damage, all of it.

http://medicalxpress.com/news/2016-04-fructose-hundreds-brain-genes-wide.html

Genes that are altered by certain chemicals are not necessarily 'damaged'. Usually the alteration is an evolved response to the environment to deal with the chemicals in question.
The article says they sequenced the genes and found alterations. As far as I am aware, sequencing reads the letters of the DNA and I very much doubt those would have changed. It is possible they were not sequencing but reading some other information.
Certainly once the sequences have been changed, there is no way DHA is going to fix them.

Originally posted by sonhouse
There is this from corn. com

The high-fructose fruits you should avoid include apples, cherries, mangoes, watermelon and pears. You can safely have moderate amounts of low-fructose fruits, such as honeydew melon, cantaloupe, bananas, blueberries, strawberries and oranges, if they are well spaced throughout the day.

They seem to be saying you shou ...[text shortened]... That is besides the effects found on genes in the brain.

Better get lots of DHA. (omega-3's)

The pub med paper is talking about high fructose corn syrup - in other words highly refined sugar. Note the last sentence of the abstract:

With a few exceptions, the relatively small amounts of fructose that occur naturally in fruits and vegetables are unlikely to have deleterious effects, and this review is not meant to discourage the consumption of these healthful foods.