Yes--it's very tough to have a real debate when one of the responders tends to respond to "facts" that weren't in the initial post. Like.....when I noted the study material of a drink sweetened with glucose or fructose--which I took from the abstract and from material I had read in the morning--and you chastised me for comparing results with 100% glucose and 100% fructose to a real-life way of eating.Your words: "A Straw Man argument as folk simply don't consume beverages that're either 100% glucose or 100% fructose in the normal course of events." But I never said 100%. And this kind of bait and switch happens all too often."Chastised?". I'm hardly chastising you, sheila by pointing out that folk don't routinely consume beverages that have either fructose or glucose alone as a sweetening agent i.e. only one or the other....as in 100% one or the other (manifestly, the study subjects weren't consuming 100% fructose or glucose.....there'd have to be some water there as well otherwise they'd be consuming crystalline powder rather than a sweetened drink. I wouldn't exactly callthat a bait and switch) However, regardless of how you choose to interpret my statement, the fact remains that, outside of a research lab, individuals don't routinely consume beverages that are sweetened only, solely, totally...or 100%....with fructose or glucose and nothing else.The investigators are all from the Section of Endocrinology, Department of Internal Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine -- certainly people who know the science of what they're studying and thinking about.....And here is their conclusion....CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: In a series of exploratory analyses, consumption of fructose compared with glucose resulted in a distinct pattern of regional CBF (cerebral blood flow) and a smaller increase in systemic glucose, insulin, and glucagon-like polypeptide 1 levels.Indeed.This shouldn't be terribly surprising though since fructose and glucose are two different monosaccharide with different chemical and physical structures and have differing metabolic pathways. This much has been known for decades.However....and in the context of sticking to the topic....my initial post was very obviously not a criticism of the research per se but of the tendancy of journalists to put a spin on research studies that oftentimes isn't warranted.I'm sure there are plenty of folk around who, on reading these articles are going to draw the inference that it's "too much" fructose that makes you fat.....and by implication HFCS......as opposed to "too much" of everything....including the fructose:glucose combo commonly known as "sugar". You yourself mentioned that the drinks used in this study were "reality based" in that they were sweetened with either fructose or glucose. Fructose is not HFCS and is not used routinely as a sweetening agent instead of HFCS, "sugar" or glucose.
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. Market data provided by Interactive Data.
Company fundamental data provided by Morningstar. Earnings Estimates, Analyst Ra