zxcvbob wrote:
David Hare-Scott wrote:
zxcvbob wrote:
Billy wrote:

Since we seem to have jumped the tracks here anyway, let me just
observe that the only people left in the industrialized world who
don't know about the deleterious health effects of HFCS must be
watchers of FOX NEWS (Murdoch & Co.), and, therefore, supporters of
Glen Beck, and Sarah Palin.


HFCS is not significantly worse than cane sugar or beet sugar or
honey. All four are made up of approximately the same proportions
of glucose and fructose. That doesn't mean HFCS is good for you,
quite the opposite; it means sugar and honey are worse for you than
ppl think.

No. Cane sugar and beet sugar are almost 100% sucrose. I can't lay
my hands on an analysis for beet sugar (which we don't get much
here) but white refined cane sugar is one of the most pure chemical
substances that you will find in your kitchen.



Yes, but sucrose is fructose + glucose.

Bob

True depending on what meaning you give to the "+", in this case it is
false. The compound sucrose behaves chemically quite differently to the
mixture of the two compounds fructose and glucose. Any chemistry textbook
will show you examples of this. The issue being disputed is how human
metabolism reacts in the two cases. For that have a look he

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HFCS

David