Just try and consume the WHO recommended sugar intake. About 24 grams per day. One can of Pepsi, 41 grams. Eat processed food and you will get up to 24 by breakfast.

"A new WHO guideline recommends adults and children reduce their daily intake of free sugars to less than 10% of their total energy intake. A further reduction to below 5% or roughly 25 grams (6 teaspoons) per day would provide additional health benefits.

Free sugars refer to monosaccharides (such as glucose, fructose) and disaccharides (such as sucrose or table sugar) added to foods and drinks by the manufacturer, cook or consumer, and sugars naturally present in honey, syrups, fruit juices and fruit juice concentrates."

Sure lucky760, I'll do Splenda, since some varieties of Coke Zero have Splenda in them.

First off it is important to note that the majority of the anti-sweetener "science" has been done by one man: Dr. Joseph Mercola. Now, watch out here, because his name is deceptive. You see, Mercola is an osteopathic physician. Osteopathy is a form of pseudoscience that believes that all pathology can be solved by manipulation of the bones and muscles. There is little science to back up these claims because they are clearly insane and worthy of ridicule. So, much like his doctorate, the claims he makes against sweeteners are pseudoscientific. A number of his beliefs are: that AIDS is not cause by HIV but by psychological stress; that immunizations and prescription drugs shouldn't be prescribed but people should instead buy his dietary supplements; that vaccinations are bad for you and your children (a belief which is the cause of recent outbreaks of whooping cough, measles and mumps); and that microwaves are dangerous machines that irradiate their products (they do, but not with the kind of radiation he is thinking of). Since he made a movie called Sweet Mistery: A Poisoned World, he has been at the forefront of anti-sweetener rhetoric. If you watch the movie, note how hilariously bad it is at actual science; the majority of the "evidence" is people claiming side effects after having ingested something with a sweetener in it (anecdotes are worth nothing in science except perhaps as a reason for researching further). So, you have a movement against something seen as "artificial" by a man who is not a doctor, not a scientist and is clearly lacking in the basics of logic.

Now, Splenda. Created by Johnson and Johnson and a British company in the seventies, it's primary sweetener ingredient is sucralose. The rest of it is dextrose, which as I have said above, is really just d-glucose and is safe for consumption in even very large quantities. So really, we are asking about sucralose. Sucralose is vastly sweeter than sucrose (usually around ~650 times) and thus only a very small amount is needed in whatever it is you are trying to sweeten. The current amount that is considered unsafe for intake (the starting point where adverse effects are felt) is around 1.5g/kg of body weight. So for the average male of 180lbs, they would need to ingest 130g of sucralose to feel any adverse effects. This is compared to the mg of sucralose that you will actually be getting every day. The estimated daily intake of someone who actually consumes sucralose is around 1.1mg/kg, which leaves a massive gap. Similarly to aspartame, if you tried to ingest that much sucralose, you would be incapable due to the overwhelming sweetness of the stuff.

There is some evidence that sucralose may affect people in high doses, but once again, this is similar to the issues with aspartame, where the likelihood of you getting those doses is extremely unlikely.

The chemistry of sucralose is actually way too complicated to go into, but suffice it to say that unlike aspartame, sucralose is not broken down in the body at all and is simply excreted through the kidney just like any other non-reactive agent. The reason that it tastes sweet is because it has the same shape as sucrose except that some of the hydroxy groups are replaced with chlorine atoms. This allows it to fit in the neurotransmitters in the tongue and mouth that send you the sensation of sweetness without also giving you all of those calories. Once it passes into the bloodstream it is dumped out by the kidneys without passing through the liver at all.

In sum, if sweeteners were bad for you, they wouldn't be allowed in your food. Science is not against you, it is the only thing working for everyone at the same time. The reason sugar has gotten around this is because we have always had it. If you want to be healthier, don't drink pop, drink water or milk (unless you are lactose intolerant, then just drink water). Don't drink coconut milk, or gatorade, or vitamin water. Assume that when a company comes out with something like "fat free" it really reads "now loaded with sugar so it doesn't taste like fucking cardboard." Assume that when a company says something is "natural" it is no more natural than the oils you put in your car. IF you want to live and eat healthy, stay on the outside of the supermarket, avoiding the aisles. All of the processed food is in the aisles, not on the outsides and the companies know that you don't want to miss anything. Make your food, don't let someone else do it. And never, ever buy popped popcorn, anywhere, the mark-up on that shit is insane.

Sugar is sucrose. Sucrose is glucose and fructose combined and it is immediately separated in the body by the saliva in your mouth. Glucose is fine for your body, it is the energy storage system that metabolizes into glycogen in the liver. Fructose, on the other hand, is a toxin that is metabolized in the body similarly to alcohol, as ChaosEngine said. Essentially it is treated as a toxin and turned into numerous by-products which do things like: delay your leptin response (you feel full later, thus making you eat more), increase your high-density lipo-protein (increasing your cholesterol and storing fat in your liver), and decreasing your sensitivity to insulin (leading to type-2 diabetes).

As to what artician said, high-fructose corn syrup and sugar are treated exactly the same in the human body. In fact, here is a list of all of the things that companies call sugar to hide it when it is the exact same thing: brown sugar, caster sugar, fruit sugar, organic sugar (in fact sometimes they just put organic in front of any of these things to make it seem better for you but trust me, it isn't), evaporated cane juice, evaporated cane syrup, high fructose corn syrup, sucrose, glucose-fructose, brown sugar, honey, molasses, golden syrup, high glucose corn syrup, agave/agave nectar, corn sweetener, fruit juice solids, cane syrup solids, fruit juice concentrate, invert sugar, maltodextrin and even fruit juice.

All of the studies done in the last 15 years have shown that sugar is sugar and calories are not calories. All of the kinds of sugar that have quantities of fructose are bad for you, except when they have fiber. This is why fruit is still good for you while fruit juice is the same thing as soda.

The only things that you do not have to avoid as a sugar are these: brown rice syrup, dextrose and glucose. All of these things are completely glucose, no fructose whatsoever. Therefore, they are largely safe. However, large quantities of glucose can give you a large liver because of the stored glycogen.

Some links if you don't believe me:

Comparison: http://www.foods4betterhealth.com/what-evaporated-cane-juice-sugar-vs-evaporated-cane-juice-8645

Aspartame: http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4127 ; http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/are-artificial-sweeteners-safe/

HFCS vs Sugar: http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4157

Dangers of Fructose: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/high-fructose-corn-syrup/

High fructose corn sugar is about 55% fructose and 45% glucose.
"Table sugar" ie sucrose is about 50% fructose and 50% glucose.

Glucose is not fine. You gain the same amount of weight regardless of the type of sugar. Glucose can still kill you, but fructose is worse. It has shown some insulin resistance and also increased cholesterol levels.
http://www.webmd.com/heart/metabolic-syndrome/news/20090421/fresh-take-on-fructose-vs-glucose?page=2

HFCS is not much worse for you than table sugar, but it is worse than dextrose(ie d-glucose). Why don't more people use dextrose? It requires 3 times as much dextrose to achieve the same taste as HFCS. I'm still not sure which is worse.

PS: Both HFCS and dextrose are made from corn.

My children haven't eaten a single piece of candy, cookies, or cake, since birth - except entirely by accident. When it does happen, we declare them to be defiled, and set about making another child. (true story)

But seriously, a no sugar diet really opens up your world to tasting food on a whole new level. Food is amazing. Refined sugar (white sugar, brown sugar, cane juice, fructose, sucrose, whatever-you-want-to-call-it) is a poor substitute taste wise, and is an absolute anti-nutrient (poison) health wise.

However, I prefer individual, personal commitments to change rather than sweeping public reform...

>> ^ghark:

The thing I hated the most in the lab was having to constantly deal with formaldehyde - a pretty potent carcinogen.



Yeah... still dealing with this myself in lab. Its so commonly used that people just messily use it like its sucrose or something.

National Toxicology Program 'Report On Carcinogens, Twelfth Edition (2011)'
pg.195
"Formaldehyde is known to be a human carcinogen based on sufficient
evidence of carcinogenicity from studies in humans and supporting
data on mechanisms of carcinogenesis. Formaldehyde was first listed
in the Second Annual Report on Carcinogens in 1981 as reasonably
anticipated to be a human carcinogen based on sufficient evidence
from studies in experimental animals. Since that time, additional
cancer studies in humans have been published, and the listing status
was changed to known to be a human carcinogen in the Twelfth Report on Carcinogens (2011)."

>> ^vaire2ube:

The "Your body can't tell the difference" ad for corn sugar reminds me of the "I'm not a witch" ad...
Why bother bringing it up if there is no merit, etc...
Plus its been proven HFCS "corn sugar" is bad for you, and is just used because its a cheap thickening agent which is why you find it in products that don't even need it.
It's about money over your health, but "your body can't tell the difference".

. .. "in high-fructose corn syrup, the fructose molecules in the sweetener are free and unbound, ready for absorption and utilization. In contrast, every fructose molecule in sucrose that comes from cane sugar or beet sugar is bound to a corresponding glucose molecule and must go through an extra metabolic step before it can be utilized."
Source: http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S26/91/22K07/"
A Princeton University research team has demonstrated that all sweeteners are not equal when it comes to weight gain: Rats with access to high-fructose corn syrup gained significantly more weight than those with access to table sugar, even when their overall caloric intake was the same.
In addition to causing significant weight gain in lab animals, long-term consumption of high-fructose corn syrup also led to abnormal increases in body fat, especially in the abdomen, and a rise in circulating blood fats called triglycerides. The researchers say the work sheds light on the factors contributing to obesity trends in the United States."

Go to http://www.cornsugar.com and let them know you dont believe their ad.

Sugar is BETTER for you than "Corn Sugar", and always in moderation.


There is not a scientific consensus about whether HFCS is worse than cane sugar. That Priceton paper is making big waves, but there are contrary viewpoints.

Reddit's AskScience forum had this discussion, which involves several relevant scientists:
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/djo8a/whats_the_deal_with_hfcs_vs_real_sugar/

@peggedbea
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-fructose_corn_syrup
"In the U.S., HFCS is among the sweeteners that have primarily replaced sucrose (table sugar) in the food industry. Factors for this include governmental production quotas of domestic sugar, subsidies of U.S. corn, and an import tariff on foreign sugar; all of which combine to raise the price of sucrose to levels above those of the rest of the world, making HFCS less costly for many sweetener applications."
So there are politico-economical reasons sodas in Europe contain beet sugar.

The "Your body can't tell the difference" ad for corn sugar reminds me of the "I'm not a witch" ad...

Why bother bringing it up if there is no merit, etc...

Plus its been proven HFCS "corn sugar" is bad for you, and is just used because its a cheap thickening agent which is why you find it in products that don't even need it.

It's about money over your health, but "your body can't tell the difference".


. .. "in high-fructose corn syrup, the fructose molecules in the sweetener are free and unbound, ready for absorption and utilization. In contrast, every fructose molecule in sucrose that comes from cane sugar or beet sugar is bound to a corresponding glucose molecule and must go through an extra metabolic step before it can be utilized."

Source: http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S26/91/22K07/"

A Princeton University research team has demonstrated that all sweeteners are not equal when it comes to weight gain: Rats with access to high-fructose corn syrup gained significantly more weight than those with access to table sugar, even when their overall caloric intake was the same.

In addition to causing significant weight gain in lab animals, long-term consumption of high-fructose corn syrup also led to abnormal increases in body fat, especially in the abdomen, and a rise in circulating blood fats called triglycerides. The researchers say the work sheds light on the factors contributing to obesity trends in the United States."



Go to http://www.cornsugar.com and let them know you dont believe their ad.


Sugar is BETTER for you than "Corn Sugar", and always in moderation.

>> ^teebeenz:

"For people who are worried about their health or their children’s health — and who isn’t, these days — the data suggest that the best choice is to reduce intake of all sweeteners containing fructose. That includes not only the evil HFCS, but also natural cane sugar, molasses (which is just impure cane sugar), brown sugar (ditto) and honey. Even “unsweetened” (no added sugar) fruit juices need to be considered when limiting your family’s fructose intake."
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=6501


But is that true? Sucrose is 50% fructose and 50% glucose when broken down, but is sucrose actually processed in that order: split the disaccharide and then digest individual sugars? (Your link says that this is the case. And it says unsplit disaccharides stay in the gut. What percentage does this happen to?) Is there proof that fructose alone is bad and that it's not the imbalance of excess fructose vs. sucrose that's bad, like omega-6 vs. omega-3 fatty acids? Is fructose from Coke, mixed with carbonic acid, processed the same way, at the same speed, as fructose from apple juice?

HFCS leads to increased triglyceride levels compared to sucrose. This causes diabetes.

Besides, drinks with real sugar in them taste better.

Indeed, manipulative as the ad is, there is is no use fighting this stuff with FUD.
There have been a few basic studies on the dietary impact of glucose and fructose, particular in relation to insulin.

In terms of satiety, this is a fairly recent report :
^ Monsivais et al. (2007). "Sugars and satiety: does the type of sweetener make a difference?". American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 86: 116–123.

Chemically the corn syrup (55% fructose and 45% glucose) used in foods is very similar to sucrose (50% fructose and 50% glucose) and thus mimics its apparent sweetness.
The chief difference, aside from the slight increase in fructose is that sucrose is a disaccharide - the fructose and glucose are covalently bonded by a condensation reaction (removal of a H20).
Corn syrup however, consists of individual molecules of glucose and fructose, which aside from tasting different, can be absorbed more readily by the body : The body requires an enzyme to break down the sucrose into fructose and glucose.

It's pretty clear that refined foods are for the most part bad for us because they deliver nutrients in concentrations far greater than we could ever get by harvesting food by hand. High concentrations of fructose could be problematic.
Honey from bees contains free fructose and glucose molecules (48%,47%), and so would pose a similar risk - the main difference is that honey is not consumed in such vast concentrations as found in soft drinks.

If you really want to taste how much sugar is in a soft drink. Let it go cold and flat and see how much you can drink.
http://www.4hoteliers.com/4hots_fshw.php?mwi=1243

So sadly, I think the advert does have a point: It is probably fine in moderation though perhaps they should have stated (and like honey, it is fine in moderation).

Food Reward in the Absence of Taste Receptor Signaling

Neuron, Volume 58, Issue 2, 24 April 2008, Page 295
Ivan E. de Araujo, Albino J. Oliveira-Maia, Tatyana D. Sotnikova, Raul R. Gainetdinov, Marc G. Caron, Miguel A.L. Nicolelis and Sidney A. Simon


Summary

Food palatability and hedonic value play central roles in nutrient intake. However, postingestive effects can influence food preferences independently of palatability, although the neurobiological bases of such mechanisms remain poorly understood. Of central interest is whether the same brain reward circuitry that is responsive to palatable rewards also encodes metabolic value independently of taste signaling. Here we show that trpm5−/− mice, which lack the cellular machinery required for sweet taste transduction, can develop a robust preference for sucrose solutions based solely on caloric content. Sucrose intake induced dopamine release in the ventral striatum of these sweet-blind mice, a pattern usually associated with receipt of palatable rewards. Furthermore, single neurons in this same ventral striatal region showed increased sensitivity to caloric intake even in the absence of gustatory inputs. Our findings suggest that calorie-rich nutrients can directly influence brain reward circuits that control food intake independently of palatability or functional taste transduction.

Full Article (Subscription only):

http://preview.tinyurl.com/57pgmn

yes you do gunrock, semper fi and shit, you got better friends than most, the kind that will talk about yer shriveled nut sack one minute, and take a round in yer stead the next-

Halloween is my favorite holiday. Reckless sucrose abuse, kids with pillow cases roaming the streets, and open garage doors.....a thousand windows into last year's Wal-Mart close-out item catlog.....

Happy Halloween

"Simple sugars include sucrose, fructose, glucose, galactose, maltose, lactose and mannose."

Disaccharides
sucrose = glucose + fructose
lactose = glucose + galactose
maltose = glucose + glucose

Simple Carbohydrate Sources
--------------------------
Sucrose - Table sugar, brown sugar, confectioners sugar, raw sugar and turbinado
Glucose - Dextrose, corn syrup and glucose syrup or tablets
Fructose – Honey, fruits and vegetables
Lactose - Milk products
Maltose, Dextrose – Cereals, flour and many baked goods
Alcohol Sugars - Sorbitol, mannitol, xybitol

Complex Carbohydrate Sources
-------------------------
Insoluble Fiber - Wheat bran, cabbage, beets, carrots, brussel sprouts, turnips, cauliflower and apple skin (pectin)
Soluble Fiber -: oat bran, oats, legumes (beans), citrus fruits, strawberries, apple pulp, psyllium, rice bran and barley
Starches - Flour, bread, rice, corn, oats, barley, potatoes, carrots, corn, legumes, fruits and vegetables.


HFCS is getting a bad name. You'll start seeing P&G and our chemical manufactured food overlords switching to other things, like galactose.

Diabetes is the fifth deadliest disease in the United States. High blood sugar is among the most costly health problems in America. Health care and other costs directly related to diabetes treatment, and the cost of lost productivity, are $98 billion annually. Forget Big Tabacco, Big Sugar will be the next target for class actions