Caine said:
Do you think I just make this stuff up?
Not intentionally ... however the bug up my hiney is "selective" reporting ... aka: not reporting
all of the facts. While your "excepts" from the
Washington Post article writen by Sally Squires, a "staff writer" (not a medical or scientific writer) supported YOUR anti-sugar agenda ... it did not reflect either the entirety of the article nor all of the research. For those wanting to read the entire article, not just selected excerpts, it can be found
here.
The media, and some "so called" nutritionists, have done a great job of misdirecting or distracting prople ... they hear the word fructose and think it means "high fructose corn syrup" because that is what the media has conditioned them to believe. The fact is - this is sooo bogus, and detracts from the real problem!!!
The truth is (in short) - corn syrup (glucose) is hydrolized from corn starch ... if you then process it to convert part of the glucose to furctose you have High-Fructose Corn Syrup - a term used to differentiate it from regular corn syrup which doesn't contain fructose. Generally, it's about 45% glucose and 55% fructose. Table sugar, sucose, is 50% glucose and 50% fructose.
Grab an orange ...
IF it had a label on it ... breaking down the "types of sugar" it contains .. it would show about 50% Sucrose, 25% glucose, and 25% Fructose.
Even before HFCS - we were using
invet sugars in baking and confections for their properties ... made from breaking down sucrose into glucose and fructose.
Is fructose metabolized differently than glucose? Probably, according to some research. Is HFCS a greater threat than sucrose? Probably only to the Sugar Cane Producers - there is credible research that shows it's no more harmful than table sugar.
Are we consuming too much sugar? I'll agree with that - if you're honet about it and don't try to put all the blame on HFCS ... this is getting to be a problem even in EU countries that don't have HFCS.