If you remember when diabetes was called “sugar diabetes” you have part of the answer.
Are there connections between the Standard American Diet (SAD) and what’s making America fat and diabetic? If you guessed sweeteners, you’ve got a large piece of the puzzle. Last week’s article was about sugar and high blood pressure. It’s nice to know you’re widely read. Shortly after the article hit the streets, or cyberspace, I got an e-mail from the Corn Refiners Association in Washington, DC.
The e-mail basically said that fructose was no different than sucrose and gave me research links to prove their point. Strange thing is: I don’t remember singling out fructose as being worse than sucrose. I did state that high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) was shown in the research to be more likely to cause obesity and hypertension. If we have a desire to put on weight, raise our blood pressure, aggravate a pre-diabetic condition or contribute to other diseases, any of the sugars will do just fine.
One of the research statements in the e-mail was “high fructose corn syrup…is nutritionally equivalent to sucrose. Once absorbed into the blood stream, the two sweeteners are indistinguishable.” When you see … it usually means something has been left out of the quote. I don’t know what they chose to leave out (LRM). Maybe they left out that neither is beneficial and in fact are detrimental, especially in the amounts consumed in the SAD. To prove I’m not an anti-fructose extremist, I browsed my files and found another study by scientists at the University of California comparing drinks flavored by fructose and sucrose. Their conclusion was really bad and even worse. Sucrose was “really bad”, and fructose got the distinction of “even worse.”
Over the course of the 10-week project, both groups in the study put on the same amount of weight. But, the fructose group developed more abdominal fat, the type harder to get rid of, and showed more risk factors for diabetes and heart disease than the other group.
Even though both put on excessive weight, researchers concluded the fructose drinkers would eventually put on more weight and increase their risk of future health problems. Conclusion: sugar is bad no matter where it comes from.
Common sense tells us the higher the fructose concentration, the higher the risk of putting on excess weight and increased health risks. High-fructose corn syrup says it like it is “High Fructose”, and HFCS is in the majority of foods in SAD. Want a good artificial sweetener? Before you switch to artificials, know that HFCS is a lab developed sugar, (does that make it artificial?) then check out the problems with aspartame and others in that gang.
When it comes to bottom lines, the problem isn’t really with the sweeteners or the manufacturers, it’s our addiction to sugar. Want to get healthy and lose those extra pounds? Simple, quit doing what caused the problems.
How do you feel about funding doublespeak with your tax dollars? Chasing down who funds research grants, which can lead us to the real reason for a grant, can be a difficult and very time consuming process. Data smog here we come.
Before Obamacare became the law of the land, MIT economist Jonathan Gruber spoke on its behalf as a supposed independent voice. In fact, he was one of the most outspoken “independent voices” arguing for the healthcare proposals.
Was he really independent?. The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) paid him nearly $400,000 to provide “technical assistance” in evaluating the positive aspects of healthcare proposals. DHHS has vested interest in seeing their higher ups get what they want: It’s called job security.
Mr. Gruber forgot to mention his conflict of interest on TV or in the newspaper articles where he promoted the plan. His health reform Op-ed in the Washington Post failed to mention he was getting paid to put a positive spin on the plan.
One doctor wrote, “For the record, Gruber says it’s all fine because he told anyone who asked, and anyway he was paid to advise the administration — not for his media appearances.” Then the doctor, quoted here, went on to say he was counting the days until the midterm elections.
What is data smog and how does it pertain to all this? If there’s enough smog you can’t see where you’re going. Data smog is like that too. Fill the air with data smog, no matter if it’s right or wrong information, and pretty soon most people’s eye glaze over and they believe what they hear, read or see the most, especially if it comes from an authority. One meaning of authority is “in command” and that’s what data smog producers want to be. Read the labels, so far no one has been able to change that, or had to since not many read them anyway.