| 101lifts2 |
04-05-2010 06:55 PM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Avatard
(Post 357592)
Sorry, table sugar is not NEARLY as bad, according to this latest research, not even at twice the dose was it as fattening as HFCS.
Reading. It's still fundamental.
...and you can get as worked up as you want, but you can't change the findings of this study. Love corn so much? Do your own study. Prove everyone wrong.
|
I think this is the jist of what you trying to say...
"High-fructose corn syrup and sucrose are both compounds that contain the simple sugars fructose and glucose, but there at least two clear differences between them. First, sucrose is composed of equal amounts of the two simple sugars -- it is 50 percent fructose and 50 percent glucose -- but the typical high-fructose corn syrup used in this study features a slightly imbalanced ratio, containing 55 percent fructose and 42 percent glucose. Larger sugar molecules called higher saccharides make up the remaining 3 percent of the sweetener. Second, as a result of the manufacturing process for high-fructose corn syrup, the fructose molecules in the sweetener are free and unbound, ready for absorption and utilization. In contrast, every fructose molecule in sucrose that comes from cane sugar or beet sugar is bound to a corresponding glucose molecule and must go through an extra metabolic step before it can be utilized."
Of course the underlying problem is still not corn, but HFCS eaten in too large of quantities with little to no exercise. |
