On 25 Jun 2005 15:22:48 -0700
"Roy" > wrote:

> >And it's absolute POISON for diabetes and pre-diabetics.
>=20
> Here's a link with some information
> http://www.supermarketguru.com=AD/page.cfm/2925
>=20
>=20
>=20
> So how does it differ between the fructose from HCFS and enzymatically
> inverted table sugar?....When they exhibit the same molecules fructose
> and glucose.
> Whether you ate sugar or HFCS( of the same ratio between glucose and
> fructose) the physiological effect is similar..
> You imply that as both HFCS and cane sugar contains fructose they are
> contrued as POISON?


It's not 'POISON'.=20

Fructose has a lower glycemic index than sucrose so it used to be
advocated as a sugar replacement for diabetics and people with pre-diabetic
metabolic syndrome.=20

It turns out that if you eat fructose to the exclusion of other sugars,
it does a number on your liver and blood serum lipids. Since these are
already a problem for diabetics, fructose is no longer recommended for
diabetics.=20

As for HFCS, if you were diabetic or pre-diabetic, you shouldn't be
eating that much sugar of any kind anyway. Go get some splenda, acesulfame
potassium, hell even eat some stevia if you're into that sort of thing.=20

Whether HFCS has the same effect in the form of HFCS remains to be seen,
the only studies that have shown the bad liver effects were fructose to the
exclusion of other sugars, which is hardly what you get with HFCS. There's
no solid evidence to support the supposition that HFCS is worse for you
than the same amount of sucrose, but the fact that there does seem to be a
problem and americans get an average of 9% of their daily calories from
fructose is troubling.=20