The Truth about RFK Jr

Cane sugar or nothing? Oh no, just when I thought I had skirted around all the hills to die on, you're going to outlaw maple syrup? And honey too? I've heard a bunch about HFCS to suggest why it's not a good substitute for other sugars, but most of that comes down to its cheapness and ubiquity leading to too much sucrose and too much sweetener overall. I can understand not wanting it and agitating against it for various reasons, but I'm not convinced from that that there ought to be a law.
 
steenkh said:
My wife suffers from fructose maltolerance. While it is probably not poisonous as such, it certainly makes her writhe in pain, so a ban would not be something I oppose. But then apples (and lots of other stuff) gives her the same pains, and nobody are suggesting that apples should be banned.
Click to expand...
Of course apples and sweet fruits should be banned. The problem is Fructose in any form including the 50% that makes up sucrose, it should be pure glucose for sweetening or nothing.
 
Hercules56 said:
No, high fructose corn syrup is DIFFERENT than normal natural fructose.

High-fructose corn syrup (HFCS), also known as glucose–fructose, isoglucose, and glucose–fructose syrup, is a sweetener made from corn starch. As in the production of conventional corn syrup, the starch is broken down into glucose by enzymes. To make HFCS, the corn syrup is further processed by D-xylose isomerase to convert some of its glucose into fructose. HFCS was first marketed in the early 1970s by the Clinton Corn Processing Company, together with the Japanese Agency of Industrial Science and Technology, where the enzyme was discovered in 1965.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-fructose_corn_syrup
Click to expand...
Just like chemicals from natural sources are totally different than the same chemicals from artificial. We need to get rid of Insulin and go back to using natural insulin instead of this artificial insulin they use now.
 
Hercules56 said:
Ive given you a link which discusses how HFCS and fructose in general has many negative health effects that regular glucose and sucrose do NOT.

This is well documented. Its not quack or fringe science.
Click to expand...
You know sucrose is half fructose, so it is poison too. Pure glucose or nothing!!!
 
Being diabetic, HFCS is right out, and finding out by FA, i've found out that sucralose, a sugar sustitute, causes severe gastric distress in not not all that large amounts.
 
ponderingturtle said:
Of course apples and sweet fruits should be banned. The problem is Fructose in any form including the 50% that makes up sucrose, it should be pure glucose for sweetening or nothing.
Click to expand...
Fructose from fruit is surrounded by a large quantity of fiber, and has much less fructose than foods with added HFCS like soda, candy, cookies, etc.

The comparison is simply not accurate.

An apple a day, an orange a day, a plum a day will not have the same affects on you that a Coke a day will have.
 
Hercules56 said:
Fructose from fruit is surrounded by a large quantity of fiber, and has much less fructose than foods with added HFCS like soda, candy, cookies, etc.

The comparison is simply not accurate.

An apple a day, an orange a day, a plum a day will not have the same affects on you that a Coke a day will have.
Click to expand...
Ok, maybe its not chemically different, but fructose is definitely bad for you in the quantities supplied unnaturally, UNLIKE for naturally occurring fructose in fruit.
 
Last edited:
Hercules56 said:
Ok, maybe its not chemically different, but fructose is definitely bad for you in the quantities supplied unnaturally, UNLIKE for naturally occurring fructose in fruit.
Click to expand...
Thank you for the clarification.

Now please explain to me why cane sugar is better than an equivalent amount of beet sugar, fructose, honey, maple syrup or other calorie dense sweetener.
 
Resume said:
Being diabetic, HFCS is right out, and finding out by FA, i've found out that sucralose, a sugar sustitute, causes severe gastric distress in not not all that large amounts.
Click to expand...
Presumably as a diabetic, sucrose causes issues as well
 
The Don said:
Thank you for the clarification.

Now please explain to me why cane sugar is better than an equivalent amount of beet sugar, fructose, honey, maple syrup or other calorie dense sweetener.
Click to expand...
Its in the link I posted. Fructose reacts very differently to the body that sucrose and glucose. Its not new science.
 
Hercules56 said:
Its in the link I posted. Fructose reacts very differently to the body that sucrose and glucose. Its not new science.
Click to expand...
Which link ?

If it's the Wikipedia link it's not as clear as you make out.

Please explain with your own words why fructose is so bad...
 
Last edited:
ponderingturtle said:
And of course sucrose is poison as well as it is half fructose.
Click to expand...
Not literally poison, but too much of it is very bad for the body, in a way that is severely worse than too much glucose or sucrose.

Too much water is poison. Too much oxygen is poison.

But too much glucose is much better for you than too much fructose. We use fructose now cause its much cheaper to supply.
 
The Don said:
Which link ?

If it's the Wikipedia link it's not as clear as you make out.

Please explain with your own words why fructose is so bad...
Click to expand...
I dont have all the details remembered, but some of it involves I believe how its processed by the pancrease. Glucose and sucrose cause the body to release a hormone to tell it when it is full. Fructose does not do this. And I believe too much fructose over time causes insulin resistance.

There's a lot more to it. Fructose also has a much higher glycemic index than sucrose and glucose.
 
Last edited:
The Don said:
Presumably as a diabetic, sucrose causes issues as well
Click to expand...
Shouldn't have more that 25 grams a day. Can still have a donut once in awhile, contrary to that stupid diabetes awareness commercial where the nosy Karen says to the donut eating diabetic "I thought diabetics shouldn't eat donuts." Yeah you can Karen, just not very often, and only with a balanced diet.
 
Hercules56 said:
I dont have all the details remembered, but some of it involves I believe how its processed by the pancrease. Glucose and sucrose cause the body to release a hormone to tell it when it is full. Fructose does not do this. And I believe too much fructose over time causes insulin resistance.

There's a lot more to it.
Click to expand...

So that would be a "No" then. You have a vague memory of "fructose bad" from social media but no real knowledge or understanding.

Maybe I can refresh your memory from the Wikipedia article....

The role of fructose in metabolic syndrome has been the subject of controversy, but as of 2022, there is no scientific consensus that fructose or HFCS has any impact on cardiometabolic markers when substituted for sucrose. A 2014 systematic review found little evidence for an association between HFCS consumption and liver diseases, enzyme levels or fat content.
 
My bad.

The glycemic index (GI) of high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is generally considered to be around 87.

The glycemic index (GI) of fructose is 20.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom