Slashdot Mirror

The "High Fructose" in High Fructose Corn Syrup just refers to it having more fructose than regular syrup (which is about 10% fructose, 90% glucose). HFCS used in foods is about 42% fructose, 58% glucose. HFCS used in soft drinks is about 55% fructose, 45% glucose. There's a 90% fructose variety, but it exists just to make shipping easier, and is mixed with syrup at the destination to produce the 42% and 55% varieties of HFCS.

These ratios of fructose to glucose HFCS is about the same as in most fruits. In particular, berries and pomogranites are nearly identical to HFCS, and apples have an even higher concentration of fructose. And obesity was never associated with liking apples or other fruits.

It's the quantity of sugars people are consuming which is the problem, not the type.

The most commonly consumed forms of HFCS are 45% fructose (used in foods) and 55% fructose (used in soft drinks). The forms of HFCS with fructose levels as high as 80%-90% are used almost exclusively to mix with 45% fructose HFCS to bring it up to 55% fructose for use in soft drinks (fructose tastes sweeter than glucose). Which isn't that far off from the concentrations of fructose/glucose produced (50%/50%) from the breakdown of sucrose (table sugar). HFCS is only called "high fructose" to distinguish it from regular corn syrup which is almost pure glucose. Not because it's unnaturally high in fructose compared to other food sources.

Here's a list of the fructose vs glucose levels of different fruits. Pears, mangoes, and apples are 70%+ fructose. Other fruits are mostly around 50%+ fructose (hence why it's sometimes called fruit sugar). If fructose were really as bad as you're implying, these fruits would be considered poisonous. Glucose can be used directly in aerobic cellular respiration, but fructose needs to be converted by the liver into glucose and glycogen before it can be used in cellular respiration. Fructose is not poisonous like alcohol as you're implying. Alcohol interferes with certain neurotransmitters, which results in drunkenness in low concentrations, and death in high concentrations. There's debate over the effects of dumping a large quantity of fructose into the bloodstream and forcing the liver to process it all, but again that gets us back to pears, mangoes, and apples doing the same thing.

And to be pedantic, sucrose, fructose, and glucose (and lactose) are all "sugars".

It's not. it's what, 55% fructose, 45% sucrose -- whereas table sugar is a 50/50 split?

Where did you get the idea that you can take a food, completely ignore the body's metabolism, list its component molecules, and declare parity? It's a complete stretch, and so it's completely wrong. This is 1982-era reasoning.

The ratio of fructose and glucose in HFCS is similar to a lot of fruits. Grapes are probably the closest, at 54% fructose, 46% glucose; and honey at 56% fructose, 44% glucose. So if HFCS is bad for you, then so are grapes and honey. And if you're trying to paint fructose as the bad guy, then you should be horrified to know that apples, pears, and watermelon have an even higher fraction of fructose.

The problem isn't HFCS per se. It's that we eat too much damn sugar (in all forms).

> Your argument mostly seems to be "Paleo is invalid because it's not how ACTUAL CAVEMEN ate 10,000 years ago!"

No, my argument is that paleo is stupid pseudoscientific trash that has no place in any reasonable discussion of nutrition. The fact that actual 'cavemen' didn't eat that way is just further proof that it's stupid, because one of its selling points is that 'this is the diet the human body evolved for.' A clever scheme that its advocates use to avoid criticism (if the human body evolved for this diet, it must be healthy!)

> Let's agree that the "Paleo" diet should have a better name since stone age cavemen didn't eat that way, okay?

You and I might be able to agree on that but a lot of paleo advocates can't, because if they did, their entire business model would break down. They'd have to do the hard work of explaining why a diet of 'low carbs, seafood, nuts, and vegetables' is better than any of the 1000's of other similar diets that have cropped up over the years and have generally been debunked.

> Explain to me what, exactly, is unhealthy about the recommendations of the Paleo diet, rather than whining that "it's not really a stone age diet."

Well, too much emphasis on meat, for one. For example, as described by this link: http://thepaleodiet.com/the-pa...

But even if it's a perfectly healthy diet, that doesn't it's better than the modern agricultural diet. There is no need to reduce complex carbs, no need to eliminate legumes, and no need to blindly eliminate all processed foods from your diet.

> Are you confusing "eat more grass fed lean meat and fresh fish and seafood" with "eat nothing but meat?" I think you must be.

Huh? I think you're the one who's confused here. Fresh fish and seafood is meat, last time I checked.

The problem with various paleo diets is that they are either not paleo, not healthy, or both.

"various paleo diets" such as? I shared with you my understanding, based on having read the original "Paleo" book by Dr. Loren Cordain. Where are these "other paleo diets" that aren't healthy? Further, why do we care if a diet is "not paleo" - if it's actually a healthy diet? That criticism is pointless semantics.

See this talk, it's informative

I have seen that talk, and there's very little that's shared in it that goes against what the "Paleo" diet described by Dr. Cordain suggests. Most of her argument is that "cavemen didn't eat that way." Your argument mostly seems to be "Paleo is invalid because it's not how ACTUAL CAVEMEN ate 10,000 years ago!" Again: more pointless semantic quibbling. Explain to me what, exactly, is unhealthy about the recommendations of the Paleo diet, rather than whining that "it's not really a stone age diet."

Paleo advocates love to say that you should eat more meat.

Which? Point me to the point on the following two pages where "paleo advocates" say everybody needs to eat more meat?
http://robbwolf.com/what-is-th... -- Robb Wolf is a pretty high profile paleo advocate and author.
http://thepaleodiet.com/what-t... -- Loren Cordain is the guy who wrote the original book on Paleo, pretty literally.

Hell, I'll even spot you one: please provide ANY source from a reputable authority on Paleo which says "you should eat way less vegetables and way more meat." I've actually heard that statement from Atkins dieters, but I've literally never heard anybody advocating Paleo tell me that "forget those vegetables... load up on this fatty hamburger instead."

Are you confusing "eat more grass fed lean meat and fresh fish and seafood" with "eat nothing but meat?" I think you must be. Again, please explain - without getting into "it's not what cavemen really ate!" territory - how the food outlined on those pages I just linked to represents an unhealthy level of meat, or otherwise unhealthy way to eat for a modern human being.

You seem to be furiously trying to find something to criticize about Paleo, without actually understanding what the people advocating a Paleo diet ACTUALLY have to say on the matter. Let's agree that the "Paleo" diet should have a better name since stone age cavemen didn't eat that way, okay? Now, I'd like for you to actually explain what's nutritionally un-sound about the advice they're giving, regardless of the name of the diet.

No problem. Here's a clinical trial of the paleo diet for treating type II diabetes:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17583796
http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00435240
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19604407


Some practical advice (books/blogs) you can follow to get you started:
http://thehealthyskeptic.org/diabesity
http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/search/label/diabetes
http://perfecthealthdiet.com/
http://thepaleodiet.com/
http://www.marksdailyapple.com/

I wish your wife luck. Definitely read as much as you can before trying this. The links above will just get you started.

I try to follow thePaleo Diet. The premise is that humans have not changed much genetically from our pre-agrarian ancestors. Diets constisting of grain, refined sugars, dariy products, and salty foods were not evolutionary pressures until recent history.

I have been on the Paleo Diet for 5 months now, and I am very happy with it. It took about a week for my digestive tract to get used to more fiber in my diet, but other than that I have had a very positive expirence. Being an athlete, it has definitely helped my recovery time, and I have been much less injury prone this winter

For the most part I eat only fruits, vegetables, and meat. Some would see this as restrictive, but I find it quite liberating. So much of the American diet is centered around bread, rice, and potatoes we for get the bounty of other foods out there.