Bill who putters wrote in
:



http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/art...i?tool=pubmed&
pubmedid =19381015

"Consuming fructose-sweetened, not glucose-sweetened, beverages
increases visceral adiposity and lipids and decreases insulin
sensitivity in overweight/obese humans"

Abstract and whole study at above URL.

which is yet another good reason not to fill a baby/toddler up with
apple juice... and most "juice drinks" aimed at parents as "healthy"
are nothing but empty calories, consisting of mostly apple juice
(fructose)
lee

enigma wrote:
Bill who putters wrote in
:


http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/art...i?tool=pubmed&
pubmedid =19381015

"Consuming fructose-sweetened, not glucose-sweetened, beverages
increases visceral adiposity and lipids and decreases insulin
sensitivity in overweight/obese humans"

Abstract and whole study at above URL.

which is yet another good reason not to fill a baby/toddler up with
apple juice... and most "juice drinks" aimed at parents as "healthy"
are nothing but empty calories, consisting of mostly apple juice
(fructose)
lee

Did not read whole article but should apply also to sucrose, regular
table sugar, as it is a dissacharide of fructose and glucose.

In article ,
Frank wrote:

enigma wrote:
Bill who putters wrote in
:


http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/art...i?tool=pubmed&
pubmedid =19381015

"Consuming fructose-sweetened, not glucose-sweetened, beverages
increases visceral adiposity and lipids and decreases insulin
sensitivity in overweight/obese humans"

Abstract and whole study at above URL.

which is yet another good reason not to fill a baby/toddler up with
apple juice... and most "juice drinks" aimed at parents as "healthy"
are nothing but empty calories, consisting of mostly apple juice
(fructose)
lee

Did not read whole article but should apply also to sucrose, regular
table sugar, as it is a dissacharide of fructose and glucose.

HIGH FRUCTOSE corn syrup has been the cheap sweetener of choice in
processed foods for decades. Soft drink makers may be backing away from
it now, but the damage has already been done.

Also see:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/22/ma...l?pagewanted=1
&ei=5090&en=e8328c69f0b3f4be&ex=1334894400&partner =rssuserland&emc=rss
"Drewnowski gave himself a hypothetical dollar to spend, using it to
purchase as many calories as he possibly could. He discovered that he
could buy the most calories per dollar in the middle aisles of the
supermarket, among the towering canyons of processed food and soft
drink. (In the typical American supermarket, the fresh foods ‹ dairy,
meat, fish and produce ‹ line the perimeter walls, while the
imperishable packaged goods dominate the center.) Drewnowski found that
a dollar could buy 1,200 calories of cookies or potato chips but only
250 calories of carrots. Looking for something to wash down those chips,
he discovered that his dollar bought 875 calories of soda but only 170
calories of orange juice.

As a rule, processed foods are more ³energy dense² than fresh foods:
they contain less water and fiber but more added fat and sugar, which
makes them both less filling and more fattening. These particular
calories also happen to be the least healthful ones in the marketplace,
which is why we call the foods that contain them ³junk.² Drewnowski
concluded that the rules of the food game in America are organized in
such a way that if you are eating on a budget, the most rational
economic strategy is to eat badly ‹ and get fat."
------

Inside a human cell, there is a proof reader protein called a
spliceosome.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spliceosome
When the cell sees a protein from another species, it can think that it
is a mistake, take it apart and rearrange it, accidentally making a
protein that normally didn't previously exist in nature. Is this protein
structural? part of an enzyme? good questions with no answers that I'm
aware of.

Part of the assembly of a gene for insertion is an "enabler" to ensure
that the gene expresses itself doesn't get turned off. One such
"enabler" is the Cabbage Mosaic Virus (CaMV). About 98% of the DNA in
our chromosomes has no obvious reason for being there. DNA that is no
longer needed, and dormant viruses. Turns out, these CaMVs can separate
from the inserted gene and go roaming around. They should be able to
turn on latent DNA, that does god knows what, or they could turn on a
latent virus. Remember, the CaMV is there to insure that the gene
doesn't get turned off.

GMOs haven't anything to do with obesity, or type II diabetes, you say?
Maybe so, but for the foreseeable future, I'm eating organic.
--
--

- Billy

There are three kinds of men: The ones that learn by reading. The few who
learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence and
find out for themselves.
Will Rogers

http://countercurrents.org/roberts020709.htm
http://www.tomdispatch.com/p/zinn

Billy wrote:
In article ,
Frank wrote:

enigma wrote:
Bill who putters wrote in
:


http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/art...i?tool=pubmed&
pubmedid =19381015

"Consuming fructose-sweetened, not glucose-sweetened, beverages
increases visceral adiposity and lipids and decreases insulin
sensitivity in overweight/obese humans"

Abstract and whole study at above URL.
which is yet another good reason not to fill a baby/toddler up with
apple juice... and most "juice drinks" aimed at parents as "healthy"
are nothing but empty calories, consisting of mostly apple juice
(fructose)
lee
Did not read whole article but should apply also to sucrose, regular
table sugar, as it is a dissacharide of fructose and glucose.

HIGH FRUCTOSE corn syrup has been the cheap sweetener of choice in
processed foods for decades. Soft drink makers may be backing away from
it now, but the damage has already been done.

Now I have to look it up. I believe normal corn syrup is glucose but
they isomerize part to high fructose. A postscript in Chemical and
Engineering News was complaining about it. I'll see if I can find it.

This is article. Actually high fructose syrup is not that different
from sucrose which I would assume under the acidic soda conditions would
invert to the 50/50 mixture of fructose and glucose. Brings back old
memories as one summer I worked in a control lab at ICI in plant that
made sorbitol and mannitol which are the hydrogenated products of
glucose and sucrose. Sorbitol and mannitol are dietetic type sweetners
but consuming to much has laxative action.


Pepsi
Sweetening it old school: Pepsi and Mountain Dew Throwback.

Recently, I wrote a C&EN News of the Week article about Coca-Cola's
plans to substitute petrochemically derived ethylene glycol with glycol
made from sugar and molasses to make polyethylene terephthalate beverage
bottles (C&EN, May 25, page 9). Researching the story made me wish that
Coca-Cola could put sugar to better use, namely, making soda.

For soda lovers like me, the past 30 years have been unkind in one
respect: High-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) has replaced sugar in nearly
all beverages in the U.S.

The TWO SWEETENERS are chemically different. Common sugar is sucrose, a
disaccharide of glucose and fructose. High-fructose corn syrup is a
mixture made of glucose and fructose—55% fructose in HFCS-55, the type
of syrup used in beverages. To make HFCS, corn refiners use the enzyme
glucoamylase to break cornstarch down into glucose and then use the
enzyme glucose isomerase to convert some of the glucose into fructose.

HFCS was introduced in the late 1960s, and by the 1980s, it had
conquered the U.S. beverage industry. In 1982, the U.S. government
imposed quotas that limit sugar imports. Since then, U.S. sugar prices
have generally been much higher than global sugar prices. And HFCS-55
has been cheaper on a comparable basis—it contains about 23% water—than
sugar in the U.S. Recently, however, the margin between the two has
narrowed.

Because of the price differential, and because it's easier to handle a
liquid than a solid on an industrial scale, use of HFCS in soft drinks
and processed food skyrocketed in the 1980s. According to the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, per capita annual consumption of sugar was 84
lb in 1980. By 1990, it was 64 lb. During the same period, per capita
annual consumption of HFCS increased from 19 lb to 50 lb.

Today, finding soda made with sugar in the U.S. is as difficult as it
was to procure Levi's dungarees in the Soviet Union. That's an
exaggeration, but one does have to know where to look. One source is
Coca-Cola made in Mexico, typically available for sale at any grocer
that displays a Mexican flag prominently in the window. Another source,
kosher Coca-Cola, can be found in many supermarkets around Passover
because corn is shunned during that holiday.

There are other sugar-based sodas as well. One Dr Pepper bottler in
Dublin, Texas, still uses sugar. People can buy "Dublin Dr Pepper" over
the Internet or stumble across it at, say, a truck stop along a Texas
highway. There are also gourmet brands such as Jones Soda or Royal Crown
Draft that use pure cane sugar.

This past spring, Pepsi made life easier for soda aficionados. It
released Pepsi and Mountain Dew Throwback brands made with real sugar,
which was available from April to June.

One wonders about Pepsi's motives. Some nutritionists say HFCS is a
worse contributor to obesity than sugar is, so there could be some
marketing benefit.

Whatever the company's motivation, its efforts offered a rare
opportunity to settle the matter of which tastes better, soda made with
sugar or with HFCS.

I arranged a Pepsi Challenge—normal Pepsi versus Pepsi Throwback—at
C&EN's Northeast News Bureau. Admittedly, I had a very small statistical
sample for the blind taste test: three subjects, including my biased
self. All agreed that regular Pepsi made an immediate impact on the tip
of the tongue, whereas the subtler effects of Pepsi Throwback worked
toward the back of the mouth. One subject liked regular Pepsi better,
noting that Throwback "tastes like diet." The two others, including me,
preferred sugar.

Alexander H. Tullo wrote this week's column. Please send comments and
suggestions to .

In article ,
Frank wrote:

This is article. Actually high fructose syrup is not that different
from sucrose which I would assume under the acidic soda conditions would
invert to the 50/50 mixture of fructose and glucose. Brings back old
memories as one summer I worked in a control lab at ICI in plant that
made sorbitol and mannitol which are the hydrogenated products of
glucose and sucrose. Sorbitol and mannitol are dietetic type sweetners
but consuming to much has laxative action.

Trouble with logic is that it always hinges on its premise that may, or
may not be correct.
http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/532433/#imagetop
Soda Warning? New Study Supports Link Between Diabetes, High-fructose
Corn Syrup

So it appears that the Journal of Nutrition is battling it out with
PubMed over the toxicity of HFCS (IIRC nutritionists are paid well by
large companies like Kelloge, ConAgra, Nestl, Cargill, Kraft,
Pepsico, and General Mills to tout their products).

That just leaves us with, Dicarbonyls attacking the mitochondria
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/art...?artid=2639773
and the GMO enabler, Cabbage Mosaic Virus (CaMV).

Think I'll just try and stick with stevia.
--

- Billy

There are three kinds of men: The ones that learn by reading. The few who
learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence and
find out for themselves.
Will Rogers

http://countercurrents.org/roberts020709.htm
http://www.tomdispatch.com/p/zinn

In article
,
Billy wrote:

In article ,
Frank wrote:

This is article. Actually high fructose syrup is not that different
from sucrose which I would assume under the acidic soda conditions would
invert to the 50/50 mixture of fructose and glucose. Brings back old
memories as one summer I worked in a control lab at ICI in plant that
made sorbitol and mannitol which are the hydrogenated products of
glucose and sucrose. Sorbitol and mannitol are dietetic type sweetners
but consuming to much has laxative action.

Trouble with logic is that it always hinges on its premise that may, or
may not be correct.
http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/532433/#imagetop
Soda Warning? New Study Supports Link Between Diabetes, High-fructose
Corn Syrup

So it appears that the Journal of Nutrition is battling it out with
PubMed over the toxicity of HFCS (IIRC nutritionists are paid well by
large companies like Kelloge, ConAgra, Nestl, Cargill, Kraft,
Pepsico, and General Mills to tout their products).

That just leaves us with, Dicarbonyls attacking the mitochondria
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/art...?artid=2639773
and the GMO enabler, Cabbage Mosaic Virus (CaMV).

Think I'll just try and stick with stevia.

Got me thinking about how many folks know of bitter melon. Bitter
seems to be lacking in our foods and wondered if we had it then perhaps
our sweet could be countered will simple sweets. I remember being
enamored with sucking on common honey suckle as a youth.

Bill

http://www.google.com/search?client=...ter+mellon+ben
efit&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

--

Garden in shade zone 5 S Jersey USA

http://prototype.nytimes.com/gst/articleSkimmer/

Billy wrote:
In article ,
Frank wrote:

This is article. Actually high fructose syrup is not that different
from sucrose which I would assume under the acidic soda conditions would
invert to the 50/50 mixture of fructose and glucose. Brings back old
memories as one summer I worked in a control lab at ICI in plant that
made sorbitol and mannitol which are the hydrogenated products of
glucose and sucrose. Sorbitol and mannitol are dietetic type sweetners
but consuming to much has laxative action.

Trouble with logic is that it always hinges on its premise that may, or
may not be correct.
http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/532433/#imagetop
Soda Warning? New Study Supports Link Between Diabetes, High-fructose
Corn Syrup

So it appears that the Journal of Nutrition is battling it out with
PubMed over the toxicity of HFCS (IIRC nutritionists are paid well by
large companies like Kelloge, ConAgra, Nestl, Cargill, Kraft,
Pepsico, and General Mills to tout their products).

That just leaves us with, Dicarbonyls attacking the mitochondria
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/art...?artid=2639773
and the GMO enabler, Cabbage Mosaic Virus (CaMV).

Think I'll just try and stick with stevia.

Had never heard of it but brief google shows it has detractors too.
Of interest to all those that profess "organic", all these sweeteners
are natural products

On Jul 13, 1:22*pm, Frank wrote:
This is article. *Actually high fructose syrup is not that different
from sucrose which I would assume under the acidic soda conditions would
invert to the 50/50 mixture of fructose and glucose. *Brings back old
memories as one summer I worked in a control lab at ICI in plant that
made sorbitol and mannitol which are the hydrogenated products of
glucose and sucrose. *Sorbitol and mannitol are dietetic type sweetners
but consuming to much has laxative action.

Pepsi
Sweetening it old school: Pepsi and Mountain Dew Throwback.

Recently, I wrote a C&EN News of the Week article about Coca-Cola's
plans to substitute petrochemically derived ethylene glycol with glycol
made from sugar and molasses to make polyethylene terephthalate beverage
bottles (C&EN, May 25, page 9). Researching the story made me wish that
Coca-Cola could put sugar to better use, namely, making soda.

For soda lovers like me, the past 30 years have been unkind in one
respect: High-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) has replaced sugar in nearly
all beverages in the U.S.

The TWO SWEETENERS are chemically different. Common sugar is sucrose, a
disaccharide of glucose and fructose. High-fructose corn syrup is a
mixture made of glucose and fructose—55% fructose in HFCS-55, the type
of syrup used in beverages. To make HFCS, corn refiners use the enzyme
glucoamylase to break cornstarch down into glucose and then use the
enzyme glucose isomerase to convert some of the glucose into fructose.

HFCS was introduced in the late 1960s, and by the 1980s, it had
conquered the U.S. beverage industry. In 1982, the U.S. government
imposed quotas that limit sugar imports. Since then, U.S. sugar prices
have generally been much higher than global sugar prices. And HFCS-55
has been cheaper on a comparable basis—it contains about 23% water—than
sugar in the U.S. Recently, however, the margin between the two has
narrowed.

Because of the price differential, and because it's easier to handle a
liquid than a solid on an industrial scale, use of HFCS in soft drinks
and processed food skyrocketed in the 1980s. According to the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, per capita annual consumption of sugar was 84
lb in 1980. By 1990, it was 64 lb. During the same period, per capita
annual consumption of HFCS increased from 19 lb to 50 lb.

Today, finding soda made with sugar in the U.S. is as difficult as it
was to procure Levi's dungarees in the Soviet Union. That's an
exaggeration, but one does have to know where to look. One source is
Coca-Cola made in Mexico, typically available for sale at any grocer
that displays a Mexican flag prominently in the window. Another source,
kosher Coca-Cola, can be found in many supermarkets around Passover
because corn is shunned during that holiday.

There are other sugar-based sodas as well. One Dr Pepper bottler in
Dublin, Texas, still uses sugar. People can buy "Dublin Dr Pepper" over
the Internet or stumble across it at, say, a truck stop along a Texas
highway. There are also gourmet brands such as Jones Soda or Royal Crown
Draft that use pure cane sugar.

This past spring, Pepsi made life easier for soda aficionados. It
released Pepsi and Mountain Dew Throwback brands made with real sugar,
which was available from April to June.

One wonders about Pepsi's motives. Some nutritionists say HFCS is a
worse contributor to obesity than sugar is, so there could be some
marketing benefit.

Whatever the company's motivation, its efforts offered a rare
opportunity to settle the matter of which tastes better, soda made with
sugar or with HFCS.

I arranged a Pepsi Challenge—normal Pepsi versus Pepsi Throwback—at
C&EN's Northeast News Bureau. Admittedly, I had a very small statistical
sample for the blind taste test: three subjects, including my biased
self. All agreed that regular Pepsi made an immediate impact on the tip
of the tongue, whereas the subtler effects of Pepsi Throwback worked
toward the back of the mouth. One subject liked regular Pepsi better,
noting that Throwback "tastes like diet." The two others, including me,
preferred sugar.

Alexander H. Tullo wrote this week's column. Please send comments and
suggestions to .

How touching is the angst articulated by the drinkers of Coke and
Pepsi
as they debate sweeteners vs. sugar.

They all taste like medicine to me. I just drink water or Chinese
green tea*
with my meals, unless you are buying and offering good wine or beer.
Drinking flavored sugar water with meals is sacreligious (sp?) How can
you taste the food? Same with smoking at meals.

*BIG difference between green tea from my Chinatown store that
sells the real thing loose, by weight, and the yeeech sold in
supermarkets.
The good stuff is expensive, but you only use a few leaves per brew,
so
$50 worth can last months.

Persephone

In article
,
Higgs Boson wrote:

On Jul 13, 1:22*pm, Frank wrote:
This is article. *Actually high fructose syrup is not that different
from sucrose which I would assume under the acidic soda conditions would
invert to the 50/50 mixture of fructose and glucose. *Brings back old
memories as one summer I worked in a control lab at ICI in plant that
made sorbitol and mannitol which are the hydrogenated products of
glucose and sucrose. *Sorbitol and mannitol are dietetic type sweetners
but consuming to much has laxative action.

Pepsi
Sweetening it old school: Pepsi and Mountain Dew Throwback.

Recently, I wrote a C&EN News of the Week article about Coca-Cola's
plans to substitute petrochemically derived ethylene glycol with glycol
made from sugar and molasses to make polyethylene terephthalate beverage
bottles (C&EN, May 25, page 9). Researching the story made me wish that
Coca-Cola could put sugar to better use, namely, making soda.

For soda lovers like me, the past 30 years have been unkind in one
respect: High-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) has replaced sugar in nearly
all beverages in the U.S.

The TWO SWEETENERS are chemically different. Common sugar is sucrose, a
disaccharide of glucose and fructose. High-fructose corn syrup is a
mixture made of glucose and fructose‹55% fructose in HFCS-55, the type
of syrup used in beverages. To make HFCS, corn refiners use the enzyme
glucoamylase to break cornstarch down into glucose and then use the
enzyme glucose isomerase to convert some of the glucose into fructose.

HFCS was introduced in the late 1960s, and by the 1980s, it had
conquered the U.S. beverage industry. In 1982, the U.S. government
imposed quotas that limit sugar imports. Since then, U.S. sugar prices
have generally been much higher than global sugar prices. And HFCS-55
has been cheaper on a comparable basis‹it contains about 23% water‹than
sugar in the U.S. Recently, however, the margin between the two has
narrowed.

Because of the price differential, and because it's easier to handle a
liquid than a solid on an industrial scale, use of HFCS in soft drinks
and processed food skyrocketed in the 1980s. According to the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, per capita annual consumption of sugar was 84
lb in 1980. By 1990, it was 64 lb. During the same period, per capita
annual consumption of HFCS increased from 19 lb to 50 lb.

Today, finding soda made with sugar in the U.S. is as difficult as it
was to procure Levi's dungarees in the Soviet Union. That's an
exaggeration, but one does have to know where to look. One source is
Coca-Cola made in Mexico, typically available for sale at any grocer
that displays a Mexican flag prominently in the window. Another source,
kosher Coca-Cola, can be found in many supermarkets around Passover
because corn is shunned during that holiday.

There are other sugar-based sodas as well. One Dr Pepper bottler in
Dublin, Texas, still uses sugar. People can buy "Dublin Dr Pepper" over
the Internet or stumble across it at, say, a truck stop along a Texas
highway. There are also gourmet brands such as Jones Soda or Royal Crown
Draft that use pure cane sugar.

This past spring, Pepsi made life easier for soda aficionados. It
released Pepsi and Mountain Dew Throwback brands made with real sugar,
which was available from April to June.

One wonders about Pepsi's motives. Some nutritionists say HFCS is a
worse contributor to obesity than sugar is, so there could be some
marketing benefit.

Whatever the company's motivation, its efforts offered a rare
opportunity to settle the matter of which tastes better, soda made with
sugar or with HFCS.

I arranged a Pepsi Challenge‹normal Pepsi versus Pepsi Throwback‹at
C&EN's Northeast News Bureau. Admittedly, I had a very small statistical
sample for the blind taste test: three subjects, including my biased
self. All agreed that regular Pepsi made an immediate impact on the tip
of the tongue, whereas the subtler effects of Pepsi Throwback worked
toward the back of the mouth. One subject liked regular Pepsi better,
noting that Throwback "tastes like diet." The two others, including me,
preferred sugar.

Alexander H. Tullo wrote this week's column. Please send comments and
suggestions to .

How touching is the angst articulated by the drinkers of Coke and
Pepsi
as they debate sweeteners vs. sugar.

They all taste like medicine to me. I just drink water or Chinese
green tea*
with my meals, unless you are buying and offering good wine or beer.
Drinking flavored sugar water with meals is sacreligious (sp?) How can
you taste the food? Same with smoking at meals.

*BIG difference between green tea from my Chinatown store that
sells the real thing loose, by weight, and the yeeech sold in
supermarkets.
The good stuff is expensive, but you only use a few leaves per brew,
so
$50 worth can last months.

Persephone

LA DEE DA. Got money and cheap too, hmmm, hmmm, hmm.
--
Racial injustice, war, urban blight, and environmental rape have a common denominator in our exploitative economic system.*
~Channing E. Phillips

http://tinyurl.com/o63ruj
http://countercurrents.org/roberts020709.htm