Metabolic Syndrome Is Tied to Diet Soda

The women in my family have a history of Type II diabetes, and the general rule is that diet is always tried first, unless the case is severe. The doctors don't want to put you on meds unless they have to. Also, I'm betting those pills are not insulin: as far as I know it must be injected in order to be effective. It will never make it to the bloodstream via the digestive tract: it will be broken down to its components. It sounds like your friend has a bad case of Type II, which insulin won't help. It isn't that your body isn't making the stuff, it's that insulin no longer works: your body has built up a resistance to it.

I'm certain that quitting the soda was necessary: but if his diabetes was serious enough to require medication, that too was necessary. The danger of such an assertion is that someone else might forgo necessary meds in favor of lifestyle modifications when both are required and be crippled or even die as a result.

Insulin is available in an injectable form and a nasal form. There are no pills that contain insulin. There are some that increase the efficiency or production. Type II is now thought to be the development of insulin resistance.

At least with non-diet sodas, we have a pretty good idea of what sugar is, what it does to the body, etc.

I wish that were relevant... In the US, it's nearly impossible to find soda with sugar, instead of high fructose corn syrup. Real sugar is one of the highlights of foreign travel!

High fructose corn syrup has the very same effects on your body as regular table sugar (sucrose).

I have not seen evidence to that effect, and have seen evidence to the contrary. I will try to find it tonight from home and get something posted.

Besides, it tastes so much better!

Fructose enters directly into the Krebs Cycle. Sucrose has to be metabolized first.

True, but HFCS-55 which is used in soda and HFCS-42 which is used other foods, is not just fructose.

Just like sucrose, they are a combination of glucose and fructose.

Sucrose is a disaccharide comprising of 50% fructose and 50% glucose bound with a weak glycosidic bond. The bond is broken during digestion.
HFCS-55 is 55% fructose and 45% glucose.
HFCS-42 is 55% fructose and 45% glucose.

Also note that many sodas have strong acidic environments that would break the sucrose glycosidic bond before it consumed.

You just need to buy those strange little "micro-brew" sodas. Most grocery stores have a brand of soda that is geared towards the "earth people" that uses cane sugar.

Most grocery stores have a brand of soda that is geared towards the "earth people" that uses cane sugar.

I thought my son told me that Dr Pepper was going back to sugar, but I can't find any press releases about. Although it appears a handful of bottling plants never went to HFC.

Even better, just give up soda. Seriously. If you are thirsty, drink. If you are hungry, eat. Excess sugar in any form is not healthy.

Even better, just give up soda. Seriously. If you are thirsty, drink. If you are hungry, eat. Excess sugar in any form is not healthy.

Very true.

There is no evidence that regular sugar (sucrose) is any better for you than HFCS.

Sugar's not the best thing in the world, but HFCS is really bad for you - it turns your liver into putty and increases your addiction to the sodas. Article

There are a number of good local brands that use only pure sugar, if you have to ingest it at least buy the right stuff.

The Weston A. Price Foundation is a nonprofit, tax-exempt charity founded in 1999 to disseminate the research of nutrition pioneer Dr. Weston Price, whose studies of isolated nonindustrialized peoples established the parameters of human health and determined the optimum characteristics of human diets

Somebody know where he gets his funding? I'm deeply skeptical of self-proclaimed saviors.

PH,

Check the research being referenced. It all found negative effects in animals being fed high levels of fructose alone. HFCS used in consumer goods is either HFCS-55 or HFCS-42. Which means it either has 5% more fructose or 8% less fructose than regular sugar (sucrose). Not a significant increase or decrease.

All studies cited by people alleging the dangers of HFCS with show that regular sugar (sucrose) has the same effects, or the studies only look at fructose ingestion, not HFCS ingestion.

I repeat, there is no evidence that regular sugar (sucrose) is any better for you than HFCS.

HFCS-55 is used in soft drinks and HFCS-42 processed food. HFCS-55 is 55% fructose and HFCS-42 is 42% fructose, sucrose is 50% fructose. Hardly the dramatic increase in fructose. So apart from the 5% increase in fructose, the only other difference between HFCS-55 and sucrose is that your body does not need to use acidic hydrolysis to separate the fructose and the glucose into separate isomers.

Since acidic hydrolysis occurs in the small intestine, whether it occurs or not has no effect on fructose, sucrose, insulin, glucagon, and epinephrine serum levels.

So then what of the research showing the negative effects of high fructose consumption?

It is really simple actually. When you examine the relevant research, you will see that they observed the effects of oral ingestion of fructose only, and not HFCS-55. When the effects of HFCS-55 and sucrose were compared, the researchers found no significant differences.

No significant differences between HFCS-55 and sucrose.

S Akgun and NH Ertel. The effects of sucrose, fructose, and high-fructose corn syrup meals on plasma glucose and insulin in non-insulin-dependent diabetic subjects. Diabetes Care, Vol 8, Issue 3 279-283.

Melanson KJ et al. Effects of high-fructose corn syrup and sucrose consumption on circulating glucose, insulin, leptin, and ghrelin and on appetite in normal-weight women. Nutrition. 2007 Feb;23(2):103-12.

There's no substantial evidence to support the idea that high-fructose corn syrup is somehow responsible for obesity," said Dr. Walter Willett, the chairman of the nutrition department of the Harvard School of Public Health and a prominent proponent of healthy diets. "If there was no high-fructose corn syrup, I don't think we would see a change in anything important. I think there's this overreaction. Source: A Sweetener With a Bad Rap

"If there was no high-fructose corn syrup, I don't think we would see a change in anything important. I think there's this overreaction."

I know a way we can find out...

Roan,

No offense but that NYTimes article was a love note to industry. Not one bit of opposing opinion - and even a plug for the corn producer's site promoting HFCS.

More to the point, it's important to remember that HFCS is not a truly natural product. It's processed corn syrup that turns all-glucose natural corn syrup into a fructose product, which is then remixed with the natural corn syrup to produce a mixture similar to sugar in sweetness. But there's a rub - in the process of going through this transformation the HFCS gets some by-products created, including of reactive carbonyls, as pointed out in research more current than the research mentioned in the NYT article: Chi-Tang Ho, Ph.D., of Rutgers University notes:

In the current study, Chi-Tang Ho, Ph.D., conducted chemical tests among 11 different carbonated soft drinks containing HFCS. He found "astonishingly high" levels of reactive carbonyls in those beverages.

Carbonyls are undesirable and highly-reactive compounds associated with "unbound" fructose and glucose molecules are believed to cause tissue damage, said Ho, a professor of food science at Rutgers University in New Jersey.

By contrast, reactive carbonyls are not present in table sugar, whose fructose and glucose components are "bound" and chemically stable, the researcher noted.

Reactive carbonyls also are elevated in the blood of individuals with diabetes and linked to the complications of that disease. Based on the study data, Ho estimates that a single can of soda contains about five times the concentration of reactive carbonyls than the concentration found in the blood of an adult person with diabetes.

In other words, HFCS is loaded with materials that are not naturally found in great quantities in natural corn syrup or sugar - substances that lead to addiction, liver breakdown and diabetes.

And since HFCS is much cheaper than sugar it's the substance that makes sweet products cheaper and more profitable.

At least they got that much right in the NYT article. What a puff job.

High fructose corn syrup has the very same effects on your body as regular table sugar (sucrose).

The fact that all the HFCS comes from Roundup Ready corn and carries trace levels of herbicide is a factor that isn't mentioned. If anyone doubts the herbicide stays in there here it is right from Monsanto...

Bloomberg News 5/21/04 DuPont creates new gene trait for corn By Jack
Kaskey

The DuPont Co…has developed a genetic trait that would compete with
technology from rival Monsanto Co….Researchers found corn modified with the
trait flourished in fields sprayed with six times the usual dose of
glyphosate…to compete with Monsanto's Round-Up Ready seed technology…

Repeated applications of glyphosate can lower crop yields of Monsanto's
seeds as the herbicide builds up in the plant. Monsanto has developed newer
traits to overcome this, company spokesman Bryan Hurley said.

One of the problems with pretending its the same is that no one looks for the negative health effects.

No offense taken PH.

Please note that this was a chemical study of beverages contain HFCS, not of HFCS itself. The study also did not investigate the levels of reactive carbonyl groups in carbonated soft drinks sweeten with sucrose. It did however find that the levels of RCGs in fruit juices sweeten with similar amounts of HFCs were 1/3 of those in carbonated soft drinks. Futher indication that the high levels of RCGs in carbonated soft drinks may not be purely as a result of HFCS.

Dont' get me wrong, HFCS is not good for you, but there is no evidence that regular sugar (sucrose) is any better for you than HFCS.

The fact that all the HFCS comes from Roundup Ready corn and carries trace levels of herbicide is a factor that isn't mentioned.

Do you have a source for the claim that HFCS contains trace levels of herbicide, Pamela?

I gave you the quote from Monsanto's spokesman reported by Bloomberg. How much better can I do?

The quote says that herbicide builds up in the plants, not that it exists in HFCS.

I realized after the edit ran out that's not exactly what you're looking for. In fact any foods grown with chemical applications can have residues that are impossible to remove entirely and with a magnitude more chemicals the residue would increase. Here's the EWG results of residues tested in common foods.

Thanks Pamela, great link.

You're quite welcome! :~)

And KoolAid.

::offers Bill some grape koolaide::

::offers Bill some grape koolaide::

::then realizes that he takes it intravenously every morning::

Try some seltzer mixed with a splash of 100% juice; orange and berry work well. So many people go to the chemical varieties so they skip calories but if you give your body some nutrients it will respond by curbing your appetite. Hunger is Nature's way of asking for fuel to run on. Giving a body %$#@ instead doesn't fool it.

Preach on, Pamela. I buy the high-priced pure juices (pomegranate, blueberry, blackberry) and add it to a 3/4 glass of soda water. Mmm-mmm. You can't beat healthy home-made soda! And the high-priced juice will last you weeks. Add a little juice to a glass of water and POOF! you have vitamin water!
Try mixing a little lemonade or limeade with a berry juice to soda water. Yum.

Great thoughts all, and I shall follow your advice.

Good for you Kid, another treat my kiddies love is half juice and half vanilla yogurt in the Popsicle molds in the freezer. They have them for snacks and dessert and when they were little they could feel spoiled with treats that were just juice and yogurt. OJ makes the old fashioned creamcicle style if you like that flavor.

Once when they were really little I got a call from school to investigate their diets. Imagine me investigated for what my kids eat? They reported that my children were eating Popsicles for breakfast and the teacher was concerned to know why they weren't eating breakfast cereal. I asked her what the difference was, tee hee..

what causes that puffy, bloated look that heavy diet cola drinkers tend to have.

Huh?

that puffy, bloated look that heavy diet cola drinkers tend to have.

You mean like this? It's not the soda it's the Jack Black.

Yeah, I have never heard of diet soda bloat.

Aspartame breaks down into formaldehyde and other wonderful chemicals once it enters the body. Talk about pickling yourself!

To further support that notion, be sure to check out EatWild . You can select your state and it will list farms in your area you can buy meat, milk, eggs, and produce/wild foods from. All local, all organic. Growing your own fruits and vegetables organically is a great option too, and it really isn't THAT hard to do ;D

Be sure to read the excellent book 'The Omnivore's Dilemma' to learn more about the US subsidized excess corn and how agribusinesses are misleading us with their "organic" labels.

be sure to check out EatWild .

Thanks for that link. :-)

Diet soda is making it much worse. Chemicals aren't better and in many cases are quite toxic.

The corruption of our regulatory system has allowed a steady influx of ingredients, under a policy industry calls "sound science". That means rather than test to prove it is safe, they assume it's safe and someone needs to prove harm.

The public acts as the guinea pigs and however long it takes for concrete evidence to surface and be tied to a particular chemical is how many billions in sales in the meantime.

My problem is though the rest of my diet is pretty poor. I don't like what is considered healthy. So, is diet soda making it worse or just not helping versus regular soda?

I totally sympathize and I don't like what's billed as the "healthy foods" either. I eat lots of chocolate but real not Hersheys with soy lecithin and flavorings but a nice Fair Trade organic. Yes it's expensive but so is illness and medication. I'll put the cash into the food. Plus food makers lie about what's healthful and sell all kinds of things with health claims, steer clear of those too.

If the label boasts it's better or blah blah added put it back. Nature's best every time, don't get OJ with calcium or C added, get it straight from the source and that's true for all the foods. Health claims are marketing not nutrition except when it says on the oats good for you, that's okay its nothing added to be good.

Take soy, billed as a wonderfood and it's not, I wouldn't feed it to my dog. If you like soda choose one that is made with cane sugar and just brush your teeth.

If you can try to transition to something like a seltzer water mixed with juice or a lemonade so it has a soda sort of flavor, maybe a cherry juice with carbonation and then a natural sugar based soda on occasion. You don't need the foods to be sprouts and salads just take out the %$#@.

Go ahead and eat the treats but try the Newmans peanut butter cups or mints, they have an organic oreo type and mint type oreo cookies that are to die for good, but no gmo corn syrup or toxins.

The attack on the sugars was to sell the chemical water as a diet alternative and we see by the diabetes rates a Nation on diet foods isn't thinner or healthier. Use my grandma rule, if it was in the kitchen in the 1940's go ahead and and eat it. Have apple pie with ice cream just get organic not McDonalds or not a pop tart which is filled with %$#@.

Read the label, no corn, no soy and no words that a six year old doesn't recognize as a food. Enjoy the junk just make it real food treats and you'll be much better for it.

Good words to live by Pamela, except...

If you like soda choose one that is made with cane sugar and just brush your teeth.

This and the soda water/juice alternatives may work for most, but for diabetics, not so much. Although the water/juice is better than "real" soft drinks.

There are eleven teaspoons of sugar in a can of Coke. ELEVEN!!!

Having been a diabetic for forty-three years, the best thing to do is just wean yourself from the desire for sweets. While I do love bittersweet chocolate, most other gloppy, sugery desserts and confections turn my stomach.

It took time however. Try telling a ten year old that he can't have a piece of his own birthday cake and you'll see what I mean. What to do? artificial sweetners are one answer. With all the warnings noted, sometimes diabetics take the risk in order to have a bit of what everybody else has.

I think for non-diabetics there really is no need to use artificial sweeteners, but for diabetics it's really a quality of life issue. Diabetics want a sweet taste now and then too.

Bad as they are, artifical sweenters have their limited place.

artificial sweetners are one answer. With all the warnings noted, sometimes diabetics take the risk in order to have a bit of what everybody else has.

That is a valid point. I must just point out, however, that in my reading I have come across 2 natural sugars that have significantly less effect on blood sugar levels than sugar, etc. One is blue agave syrup, used to sweeten healthier drinks. I don't have much experience with that one. The other is xylitol. It occurs in particularly high levels in plums. I found a brand of xylitol (Emerald Forest) in my local grocery store. It looks like sugar. It tastes like sugar. It can be used like sugar. (It does cost more.) 7 teaspoons of xylitol have the same effect on blood sugar levels as 1 teaspoon of sugar. It has also been found to be good for teeth and gums, as well as many other things. (Now I'm sounding like a commercial.) For what it's worth, my chewing gum is sweetened with xylitol. I'll stop now. ;-)

Isn't Xylitol a laxative? Or at least a stool softener?

I found a brand of xylitol (Emerald Forest) in my local grocery store.

Interesting, I'm going to look for it!

One is blue agave syrup, used to sweeten healthier drinks. I don't have much experience with that one. The other is xylitol. It occurs in particularly high levels in plums.

Thanks JT I'll check those out. Ther are many sugar substitutes. A lot of them are not carb neutral. They may be better than sugar, but still something diabetics need to watch. One of the better things about Splenda is that it's sweetness is not destroyed by heat. So you can (somewhat) cool with it.

Another promising sweetener is Stevia. A plant. I've seen it in a few health food stores.

Thanks for the info

I've used stevia quite a bit. I even grow it in my herb garden... the leaves are so sweet! Mmm! I like to use it in my tea from time to time, but I'm still learning how to use it in different applications.

Thanks JT I'll check those out.

You're welcome. I hope you find them helpful. I've also used stevia a little. Forgot about that one. :-)

The American Heart Association summary says...

Any chance you know where their funding comes from?

Do you know where the funding for this study comes from? You seem to quick to raise that issue for any study that contradicts your opinions, but never when one supports them. Agendas exist on both sides.

You seem to quick to raise that issue for any study that contradicts your opinions, but never when one supports them.

Duh? Isn't that the basic point of reaching understanding, to find sources you trust and use the information provided? Isn't funding for findings a factor? Is it the only one, no but it is important to look at for bias.

When you challenge me it's your job to find contradictory evidence. If I found contradictory study data from a group with no financial upside to promoting the position, as in peer reviewed studies, I'd change my view.

Unlike a biased political argument, issues of health cross all divisions of ideology. The fact is major food manufacturers do crap to food, that is bad for us, but good for profits. It is a fact of business and regulations in modern America. My bias will always be on the side of caution for health. What's your point?

Here's a list of funders for not for profits. http://www.cspinet.org/integrity/corp_funding.html

The National Cattlemen's Beef Association paid $25,000 for its arrangement with the AHA to promote lean cuts of beef. For an agreement with ConAgra in 1992-93, the AHA received $3,500,000 for a TV program on nutrition. For companies that want an exclusive agreement with the AHA like that of the Florida citrus growers, the cost is $55,000 a quarter or $200,000 a year. Without exclusivity the cost is $25,000 a quarter or $90,000 a year. (New York Times, 10/22/97)

National Livestock and Meat Board gave $189,000 to the AHA to sponsor the HeartRide cycling series. AHA says the program will help ensure that people don't think that AHA recommends abstaining from meat. (IEG Sponsorship Report)

Merck is spending $400,000 to finance an AHA program teaching 40,000 doctors to treat cholesterol according to guidelines. (Wall Street Journal, 6/14/98)

American Heart Association has endorsed only Bayer aspirin. (NEJM 9/4/97, p. 700) According to Kramer Laboratories, Inc. (Miami), "Bayer, as we understand it, contributes over $500,000 a year to the American Heart Association." (Letter to AHA, 9/23/96) Web site is sponsored by Pfizer, Campbell, ConAgra (Healthy Choice), and Hoechst (Tufts Nutrition Navigator web site).

. Should I really consider quitting?

If you've got a big life insurance policy and a beneficiary who needs help you could keep slugging it down.

Personally I rarely had a dinner like that. I think that also is the problem.

If it's artificial, your body experiences the energy as an invading presence and sets up a defense against it. That translates into stress from eating!

How can energy be artificial?

High fructose corn syrup is as close to a toxin as you can get adding as much as ten pounds of body weight in a year on average if consumed daily.

HFCS is no more toxic than table sugar or orange juice. Adipose tissue increases due to the consumption of excess calories, regardless of the source of the calories.

Roan:

Absolutely correct. I don't even know what people mean by "artificial."

But, I'm stopping diet cokes anyway, 8-10 day can't be good for my finely tuned system! :}

HFCS is not made in a lab, it is made in a processing plant, and it consists of two naturally occurring substances; glucose and sucrose.

I have seen no scientific evidence that your body can differentiate between the fructose and glucose in sugar cane, and the fructose and glucose is HFCS. I you have any, I would love to review it.

We all metabolize different substance at different rates; substances do not metabolize themselves, so they metabolize at the rate set by a persons metabolic systems.

. If it's produced in a lab, it's fake as far as the body is concerned.

Your body has no way of determining which of two chemically identical compounds were produced in a lab. Period. Basic chemistry and physiology there, I'm afraid.

I think I made it quite clear that I am referring to a subtle body rather than the meat and potatoes sort. Chemistry is the result, not the source. Manipulating effects and not causes neither clarifies nor cures anything! If you are unfamiliar with the alternative, please say that. Period!

I have seen no scientific evidence that your body can differentiate between the fructose and glucose in sugar cane, and the fructose and glucose is HFCS. I you have any, I would love to review it.

Chemistry is the result, not the source.

Bull. Learn some plant physiology. It's all chemistry. Words do not mean just what you say they mean, and I grow tired of the anti-chemistry rants of the Luddites. You are chasing promising young people from the field with distortions.

It's no wonder we are falling behind in science. Between the God Squad suppressing anything that doesn't agree with their fairy tales and the crowd I describe above and their fairy tales, there is no tolerance for its practice in the United States.

I am clearly speaking to hardcore chemists with rigid beliefs. Enjoy your pharmaceuticals and spend some time researching Cymatic, Rife and other sound delivery systems. I am not here to argue nor be insulted. Ask yourself why you are so adamant about being right. Seems a curious response to me.

Just for kicks, the pharmaceutical industry is only about 100 years old, so before sound delivery systems and chemicals, what was being used besides ignorance and when did the ignorance start? Sound, light and color delivery systems are thousands of years old and merely being rediscovered using sensitive measuring devices two of which are approved by the FDA (Class 1 only) after years of fighting despite many approved identical delivery systems in Central America, Europe and Asia as well the Caribbean.

The constitution of the body is electromagnetic as one will discover by placing any cell under a microscope and discovering 99.9% pure space. At this scale of reality, we interact energetically with our environment and further, our bodies possess lines of energy known as meridians that anyone basically familiar with acupuncture would know.

What's worse that an individual reaction that is not correct, is the conspiratorial nature of the AMA and FDA whom have made great efforts to suppress the individuals and the technologies over the years and the people who believe them. The AMA confiscated Royal Raymond Rife's equipment when he would not sell them the patent and this after proving the efficacy of his device and homemade electron microscope ten years before the official electron microscope was invented. Rife's could videotape the data and he was the first person to see a living virus including their destruction using certain tones. Rife wanted to broadcast healing frequencies over cities but instead, we now have HAARP broadcasting ELF's over the entire nation for the past five years and a handful know about this. WAKE UP!

A non medical giant named Nikola Telsa is another example of genius who invented a technology that manages and delivers energy (plasma) which has been kept under wraps and used as a weapon rather than a cure for half a century. He also invented Alternating Current amongst over 1800 other patents but we know of Edison instead whom reportedly copied his work and sold it to Westinghouse etc.etc.etc.. The p original device in the Smithsonian has Edison's name on it but the patent number is registered to Tesla! Why? His work is the basis for HAARP, THe Woodpeckers Grid, Plasma weapons and the control of the release of free energy systems which would change our daily lives form working for energy production and delivery. How and why do you think Bush and Company is going to shoot down the bogus satellite that is hurtling towards Earth? WAKE UP! If you are unfamiliar it's because you have not made the effort to learn. I would say the bull is yours and anyone else's stubbornness regarding this information. You can do with this information what you will, but I recommend that you verify it for yourself.

I promise you and anyone from the bottom of my heart that I have no interest to lie or deceive. It's critical that people realize the power of intention and that the cells and the body are the expression of an infinite array of energ and not the source (we are transceivers). By knowing this, we learn to shift our world and life views which help people from falling prey to bogus systems of control and the paradigms that nurture this way of thinking. For example, "Bull. Learn some plant physiology. It's all chemistry. Words do not mean just what you say they mean, and I grow tired of the anti-chemistry rants of the Luddites. You are chasing promising young people from the field with distortions." I find that statement utterly amazing and while that thought is resonating, read "The Secret Life of Plants" then read the Holographic Universe" then e-mail me for a bibliography!

Regarding your comment, how can I chase anybody who chooses for themselves? Maybe that is the real issue. Fear is talking! There is nothing to fear. There is NOTHING to Fear. Believe in love. Belief in the power of yourself. The cell is the perfect model and why I took the time to challenge your viewpoint. All the rest is a detail! Truth is first felt, then the chemistry comes along. Your brain is nothing more than an electrical switching station an the ego, a little man in a leaky dingy floating alone in the middle of the ocean with his gold crown and sceptor and his illusion of control. If you believe in God, what's the point in doing so if you try to control things? Our DNA lengthens and promotes health when we are happy and loving! Chemistry is the result so once you know this, get real pissed off and realize how toxic we have allowed ourselves to become. Don't get me started on food. Discussing the reactions of chemicals is like playing ping ping with 50 balls. Once you figure out which ones to study, you have no idea how they ALL are affected by the findings of the isolated event which is why people end up taking additional drugs to counteract the first drugs ad infinitum and often with grave effects. I have a dear friend who died from this. Do you? Sound delivery systems are precision perfect and interestingly, just about 100 years old! Homeopathy must replace the old paradigms in all of its iterations!

Peace and perfect health and happiness to one and all. Sorry if this came off too strong!

This video speaks 'normal talk' and discusses relevant issues for this thread.

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lO5bZnm-Z9g]

John Gil,

I have seen no scientific evidence that your body can differentiate between the fructose and glucose in sugar cane, and the fructose and glucose is HFCS. I you have any, I would love to review it.

Do you any?

When confronting a new paradigm, one is faced with the reevaluation of their beliefs and ethos. The illusion of micromanaging our physiology is a perfect example of an evolved preference for mechanical logic, that is, direct cause and effect between what we think is causing a problem and the injection of a solution for what we think will solve the problem. Allopathic medicine does not consider the cause and is akin to guerrilla warfare within the body. Your question above becomes almost irrelevant when considering human energy as the source rather than matter and it's relationships only.

There is no way to ask a person to change their beliefs, though I will endeavor to provide a few examples of highly effective alternative. What is happening in essence is a shift to scalar (absolute) physics rather than Newtonian and Einsteinian (relative) physics. In the world of plasma, there is only energy (light) which is the source of all things material. If you want a funny take on this read Tim Allen's book I'm Not Really Here.

Energy devices are measuring the pre-physical state of the body which is in a constant flux. Given that this energy is in a constant state of renewal as well, the question is not a chemical one but rather, what is the nature of the energy that continues to attract (electromagnetically just like tuning into a radio station) the same physical results?

One of the amazing benefits of these technologies is evidence of the undeniable role we play in our own health and being frankly. Our thoughts are also frequencies which contribute to our vibratory signatures, so more generalized notions of balance are better choices than worrying about metabolizing HFCS. That's not to say that knowledge of the effects of choices is not critically important but ultimately we are talking about solutions I trust and presumably, accurate diagnostics. Though the FDA does not allow these devices to make any claims of healing or diagnostic capability, this is indeed what they do and more. I will leave you with that with one exception. Eventually, no technology will be required at all. These devices merely show us what we already are.

TO answer your question, the body, if we learn to listen to it, tells us constantly exactly what it needs. A low tech method for determining this is called muscle testing (kinesiology). if there is a name for it followed by 'ology' then it must be legit! LOL

(ORION / QXCI): Diagnostic Capabilities [http://amitausa.com/Diagnostic.htm]

ORION BIOSCAN: Newest Device - Not FDA approved as far as I know [http://www.orionbioscan.com/]

QXCI: Least used / complicated - Practitioner's Persepctive [http://www.annboroch.com/qxci.htm]

CYMATICS / CYMATHERAPY: FDA Class 1 approved [http://www.cymatherapy.com/]

RIFE TECHNOLOGY: Select link to Dr. James Bare: [http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.dfe.net/images/Nina_Book_small-f300_000.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.dfe.net/links_rb.html&h=700&w=527&sz=59&tbnid=j5mapQqjRwxbkM:&tbnh=138&tbnw=103&hl=en&start=1&prev=/images%3Fq%3Ddr.%2BBare%2Brife%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26safe%3Doff%26sa%3DG]

You did answer my question, albeit indirectly.

There is no scientific evidence that your body can differentiate between the fructose and glucose in sugar cane, and the fructose and glucose is HFCS.

There is no scientific evidence that your body can differentiate between the fructose and glucose in sugar cane, and the fructose and glucose is HFCS.

I don't think that this is being disputed at the time. The only real question in my mind are there by-products of the HFCS production process and/or by-products of it being introduced into a soft drink that change the way that the body's metabolic processes work?

Hopefully more research helps shed come light on these questions. In the meantime, the cheapness of HFCS enables "super-sized" absorption of sweets, which is most probably one of the greater contributors to health issues associated with these beverages. Just think of when you go to the multiplex theatre for a movie - the kids are always trying to up your consumption of this stuff by 50 percent or more for just a few cents more. That has to add up.

PH,

I think that is exactly what John Gil is claiming when he said: If it's artificial, your body experiences the energy as an invading presence and sets up a defense against it. That translates into stress from eating! I cannot fathom discussing the benefits of soda anything! High fructose corn syrup is as close to a toxin as you can get adding as much as ten pounds of body weight in a year on average if consumed daily.

Oh it does add up, combine the multitude of cheap calorie dense foods with the current inactive lifestyles many people live; and you can see the results. Obesity and diabetes.

I like plain seltzer. Bubbles, water no more.

Yes, nothing beats water. Once you wean yourself off the sweetness and the flavor, soda tastes like junk, leaves a bad taste in your mouth, and doesn't quench your thirst.

Apart from the odd glass of Vin de Constance, I drink plain filtered water out of the fridge door.

It's my understanding that 40% of all bottled water is processed tap water and the worst is Dasani which is borderline toxic. I am not aware of the best...yet!

John Gil, what makes Dasani (which is tap water filtered via reverse osmosis) borderline toxic?

He may be referring to the small amount of salt added to Dasani to make it taste less "flat" after its purification. That's hardly "borderline toxic" but you know how these things get blown out of proportion.

I suppose that depends on what one considers toxic and why...Chemistry is the wrong approach to be answering these questions...

Next you will all ask, if not chemistry then what in order to pull it back on familiar turf right? I have explained above in great detail my persuasion. You all are in a pissing contest that has no intended outcome. Tangential meanderings to see who is the most correct.

My comments are based upon findings at an electromagnetic level. Substances that inhibit flow are toxic.

First fructose is not extracted from corn syrups. The glucose in corn syrup is enzymatically converted to fructose; which is then mixed with glucose to create HFCS.

Second, RCGs are not a proven by-product of HFCS production. They are naturally-occurring compounds that exist in people as a result of the metabolic process. They also exist in other food and drinks which do not contain HFCS.

Third, research is not pointing towards reactive carbonyls as a likely culprit in health issues. They are elevated in the blood of diabetes, and linked to complications associated with the disease. There is no evidence that they are the cause of diabetes or related complications, and they is also no evidence that the consumptions of RCGs causes an increase in serums levels.

Please note that this was a chemical study of beverages containing HFCS, not of HFCS itself. The study also did not investigate the levels of reactive carbonyl groups in carbonated soft drinks sweeten with sucrose. It did however find that the levels of RCGs in fruit juices sweeten with similar amounts of HFCs were 1/3 of those in carbonated soft drinks. Futher indication that the high levels of RCGs in carbonated soft drinks may not be purely as a result of HFCS.

Dont' get me wrong, HFCS is not good for you, but there is no evidence that regular sugar (sucrose) is any better for you than HFCS.

Roan,

Riddle me this, are there higher levels of RCGs in soft drinks made with HFCS rather than with pure sugar or not?

Your point about the study being about the beverages and not HFCS per se is somewhat to the point. It's a little like saying that bullets don't kill people, guns do.

Riddle me this, are there higher levels of RCGs in soft drinks made with HFCS rather than with pure sugar or not?

No idea, the study only tested 11 soft drinks, all containing HFCS.

Your point about the study being about the beverages and not HFCS per se is somewhat to the point. It's a little like saying that bullets don't kill people, guns do.

I disagree, it is nothing like saying that bullets don't kill people, guns do. There is a proven causal relationship between gun fatalities and guns. There is not a proven causal relationship between HFCS and RCGs.

No idea, the study only tested 11 soft drinks, all containing HFCS.

Well, let's be realistic, soft drinks are mass-manufactured under tightly controlled production parameters. There's not going to be a lot of variation. Toss in some other flavorings, maybe there's a slight difference, but if you test the ten most popular soft drinks chances are you're going to come up with data that impacts things.

Or, to put it another way, just say it: the study showed that common soft drinks with HFCS have levels of RCGs significantly higher than soft drinks without HFCS.

Either that's true or it's not. Pretty simple.

Well, let's be realistic, soft drinks are mass-manufactured under tightly controlled production parameters.

I would agree.

There's not going to be a lot of variation. Toss in some other flavorings, maybe there's a slight difference, but if you test the ten most popular soft drinks chances are you're going to come up with data that impacts things.

I honestly do not know enough about the soft drink manufacturing process to now whether or not that is true. Assuming your assumptions are correct, that still does not mean that data from testing 10 would impact things.

Or, to put it another way, just say it: the study showed that common soft drinks with HFCS have levels of RCGs significantly higher than soft drinks without HFCS.

The study did not show that, the study only showed that HFCS containing carbonated soft drinks had high levels of RCGs.

Either that's true or it's not. Pretty simple.

You are right, it is pretty simple. It's not true. The study did not show that carbonated soft drinks containing HFCS have higher levels of RCGs than carbonated soft drinks containing sucrose. They did not test soft drinks made with sucrose.

However:

The study's co-author Chi-Tang Ho explained it's the reaction between the unbound glucose and fructose in the HFCS that makes the carbonyls.

Smoking gun. The stuff doesn't come from natural sugar in any significant amounts.

Obviously some won't be satisfied until there's a study that blocks off all avenues of retreat for deniers, and given the history of tobacco lobbyist denials about the foreknown health effects of smoking I expect that the agribusiness and beverage industry will have their lobbyists (and their mignons on Newsvine) working overtime to keep up acceptable levels of plausible denial. The corporations want us to be fat, stupid and passive consumers blaming ourselves for their willful neglect and potential malfeasance.

Not gonna happen. Hopefully.

Smoking gun. The stuff doesn't come from natural sugar in any significant amounts.

Not so. We try not to make assumptions in science. The glycosidic bond linking glucose and fructose in sucrose is very weak and easily dissolved in a slightly acidic environment. Many soft drinks are acidic, sufficiently so to potentially dissolve the bond between glucose and fructose and thereby creating the same levels of RCGs. It needs to be studied before people can start making claims.

All this is irrelevant to the base claim that RCGs are a likely culprit in health issues. BCGs are elevated in the blood of diabetes, and linked to complications associated with the disease. However, there is no evidence that they are the cause of diabetes or related complications, and there is also no evidence that the consumptions of RCGs causes an increase in serums levels.

Obviously some won't be satisfied until there's a study that blocks off all avenues of retreat for deniers, and given the history of tobacco lobbyist denials about the foreknown health effects of smoking I expect that the agribusiness and beverage industry will have their lobbyists (and their mignons on Newsvine) working overtime to keep up acceptable levels of plausible denial.

You want to take correlations and magically turn them in causation, and when someone points it out you label they as minions of agribusiness and beverage industry. Nice ad hominem attack that has no relevance to the scientific facts.

I agree that more studies are required and I am open to things other than HFCS itself in combination with other materials being the issue, but the strong presence of those materials in studied soft drinks is a strong call to understand it further. Certainly there are other factors to consider - such as the lower price of HFCS in comparison to cane sugar helping beverage manufacturers to sell larger beverages, which increased overall consumption of these materials in each serving. That said, if you're so sure that there are other factors, then I assume that you'll be the first to provide us with credible science showing us why we should consider alternative studies as evidence that HFCS is not a culprit. Until then I assume that science is being discredited for less than credible reasons. Having encountered plenty of public relations specialists on Newsvine already I take that as a reasonable assumption until proven otherwise.

I agree that more studies are required and I am open to things other than HFCS itself in combination with other materials being the issue, but the strong presence of those materials in studied soft drinks is a strong call to understand it further.

I agree, and that is what I am saying. There is currently no evidence that regular sugar (sucrose) is any better for you than HFCS.

That said, if you're so sure that there are other factors, then I assume that you'll be the first to provide us with credible science showing us why we should consider alternative studies as evidence that HFCS is not a culprit.

The culprit for what? I know of no other studies involving RCGs and HFCS; and there are no conclusive studies proving HFCS is the responsible for health issues. Furthermore, what you are asking for is negative proof. Just as I cannot logically cite the lack of evidence of proof that HFCS is safer than sucrose, you cannot do the opposite.

Until then I assume that science is being discredited for less than credible reasons.

Discredited? You misinterpret science, and when I point it out, you wish to claim that I am discrediting it? Why can you not discuss this civilly without resorting to implied personal attacks?

Having encountered plenty of public relations specialists on Newsvine already I take that as a reasonable assumption until proven otherwise.

No, that is not a reasonable assumption; it is a weak excuse for your continued ad hominem attacks all the while ignoring the science you are misunderstanding.

The culprit for what? I know of no other studies involving RCGs and HFCS; and there are no conclusive studies proving HFCS is the responsible for health issues. Furthermore, what you are asking for is negative proof. Just as I cannot logically cite the lack of evidence of proof that HFCS is safer than sucrose, you cannot do the opposite.

In other words, you're raising doubts upon your doubts, not credible scientific evidence to the contrary. That's OK, but it's not providing additional information - just doubts.Discredited?

You misinterpret science, and when I point it out, you wish to claim that I am discrediting it? Why can you not discuss this civilly without resorting to implied personal attacks?

I think that I can read English as well as the next person. Please provide additional scientific research that can shed light on this situation. You're casting doubt but not providing additional information of substance.

In other words, you're raising doubts upon your doubts, not credible scientific evidence to the contrary.

I'm not raising doubt upon my doubts, because I am not doubting anything except your claims. What I have been attempting to explain to you is that there is no scientific evidence to support your claims that HFCS is are likely culprit for certain unnamed health issues.. None.

I think that I can read English as well as the next person. Please provide additional scientific research that can shed light on this situation. You're casting doubt but not providing additional information of substance.

Perhaps you can, but either you are misunderstanding or purposely misrepresenting the science at hand. Listen PH, you are the one making the claims, so you need to provide the scientific research to support those claims. I am not casting doubt without adding anything of substance, I am attempting to correct your errors and explain the flaws in your interpretation of the science.

It's a discussion of the Maillard Reaction and specifically notes that all sweeteners undergo the transformation. Sucrose included:

During cooking, as noted above, sucrose hydrolyzes to form invert which ismore hygroscopic and is very Maillard reactive.

In fact, none of this study has anything to do with sugar metabolism or what happens to sweeteners once they enter the body. This all about how to get the desired level of browning during the cooking process for candy. It also appears that the reactions you fear happen in all sweeteners when cooked: the browning reaction is desired by the cook.

What does the Maillard reaction have to do with the claim that HFCS is a likely culprit in health issues?

I'd suggest that those who are defending "good" science take a deep breath and consider what can be done to provide more real information in this discussion. What we seem to have is studies from a few years ago that let HFCS off the hook, new studies that question them, and a need to do more research in general. Ranting about things really doesn't advance science.

My suggestion is that if you wish to malign a compound for whatever reason, at least have some science behind it when you make your claims.

You did not call for more studies until I brought it up, you made among others the following claims:

HFCS is really bad for you - it turns your liver into putty and increases your addiction to the sodas.

HFCS is loaded with materials that are not naturally found in great quantities in natural corn syrup or sugar - substances that lead to addiction, liver breakdown and diabetes.

None of which are supported by science.

I am not the one who needs to take a deep breath and stop ranting.

Roan,

Point well taken, I will try to eat my own dog food.

PH,

Thank you for your response. I think we both agree that there needs to be further research; and I apologize if I became a little militant in this discussion.

I am no fan of HFCS, or sugar; or any other highly refined or processed 'food' for that matter. I just am adverse to seeing any product malign through misinterpretation of science. HFCS is bad, not because it is 'unnatural' or allegedly contains impurities or harmful compounds; but because it is a highly refined simple carbohydrate that contain little to no real nutritional value that is in far too many processed foods and is subsequently consumed in too large a quantity by many people. Just like sucrose.

I would rather people avoid or limit all highly refined or processed foods, rather than just try find foods loaded with sugar instead of HFCS. The former is far more likely to have a beneficial effect on their health than the latter.

HFCS is bad, not because it is 'unnatural' or allegedly contains impurities or harmful compounds; but because it is a highly refined simple carbohydrate that contain little to no real nutritional value that is in far too many processed foods and is subsequently consumed in too large a quantity by many people. Just like sucrose.

I am glad that we can come to common ground on this key aspect of the debate. We are being sold s**t by the bucketful and HFCS makes it only that much easier for the corporate food suppliers to do so. It makes me sick to go into a "convenience" store in a filling station these days. It's basically all sugar/HFCS/salt/fat transport devices of one sort or another. Kind of a perfect complement to the gas at the pumps, and kind of ironic at that.

We need more research to cull out the exact details on the effects of these kinds of products on human health. It's a little bit like in the early 1960x, when people were really just starting to collect some meaningful data on the effects of smoking. Denial was still thick and science wasn't completely ready to deal with the decades of marketing that the tobacco industry had amassed via compliant media outlets. Let's be realistic - Coke, Pepsi and other major HFCS distributors put a lot of ads in major media outlets - how aggressive will they be in pursuing these kinds of issues? It will take some time.