transward (imported) wrote: Sat Mar 27, 2010 11:35 pm
I do not question your experience, but I still have not seen enough evidence to convince me that the cause is a difference in metabolism between HFCS and sugar.
Transward
Transward, I agree and hope you read the basics I posted above.
It is not the difference in metabolism.
It is the increase in the daily total grams of rapidly absorbing carbs.
When Coca Cola was "sugar" it was a rare treat.
Now Coca Cola with HFCS is a daily treat, super sized.
It isn't the choice of carbs,
White Grape Juice - 100% Real Juice (Wow, that must be better for you!)
It is a function of the 2-3 decade increase of total rapid carbs in our diet.
HFCS substitution for Sugar just coincidentally happened when soft drinks became sustenance and not a treat.
1 gram of fast absorbing carb is = 1 gram regardless of source.
British did some wonderful studies where they compared,
fructose - a sugar that allegedly does not need insulin to get into cells
glucose - a sugar that does need insulin to get into cells
sucrose- table sugar, a compound of two simpler sugars as above
potato starch - a complex carbohydrate, starch
"another starch" - can't remember.
They made them in equal carbohydrate gram amounts in equal form as a solution. Following blood sugar responses in Diabetic persons and non Diabetic persons they found no difference based on the choice of the five carbohydrates.
1 gram of processes carb = 1 gram of processed carb.
Also there has been decades of bad nutritional advice whereby even the American Diabetic Association was advising those with a carbohydrate metabolism disease to eat more pasta because it was a virtuous complex carbohydrate and not <the horror> carb free meat with cholesterol.
And that's why the latest data on tight control does not pan out.
Tight control on an abusive diet does not work is all it demonstrates.
Moi
tight control keeping blood sugar physiological
loose control just keeping blood sugar sort of, okay.