The Skinny on Diet Sodas

Everyone knows that when you are on a diet, regular soda just isn't on the menu. But order up a diet soda, have as many as you want, and you are doing a great job, right? Well, maybe not so much.

There is, and always has been, a lot of press surrounding diet sodas and artificial sweeteners (which are what give diet soda its sweet taste). For years, it has been suggested that these enticing and oh-so-delicious beverages not only rot your stomach lining and your teeth, but even can rot your brain....anyone remember the mid-90's urban legend about certain diet sodas killing memory brain cells?

I am not convinced either way on any of the above, but what I can talk to you about is the potential risks and benefits that are associated with diet sodas such that you can make your own decision to drink on up or pass on by.

Let's break it down into some "Myths and Facts":

Diet soda destroys your stomach lining.
MYTH/FACT (depending). Soda is acidic. Acidic foods and beverages can be hard on certain people's digestive systems but in general, our bodies are pretty good at adjusting. An occasional soda here and there is not going to wreak havoc on your stomach if you don't have underlying conditions to begin with. If you are having problems with acid reflux, indigestion or ulcers then, indeed, sodas probably aren't the best and you should avoid as they will exacerbate these conditions.

Diet soda rots your teeth.
FACT. As stated above, soda is acidic. Acid is hard on your teeth. Continuously drinking soda throughout the day is definitely not a good thing to do if you want to preserve a sparkling smile. My advice: if you want to enjoy a soda (diet or otherwise), do so through a straw and brush your teeth immediately after.

Diet soda kills your brain cells.
MYTH(??). I actually consider the jury to be still out on this one. It really has more to do with the artificial sweeteners and other artificial ingredients than anything else. We really don't have all the answers when it comes to long-term effects of artificial anything. While it appears that regular (in other words: in moderation) human consumption of FDA-approved additives is perfectly safe, there is no 100% guarantee.

Diet soda helps you lose weight.
MYTH. This actually falls in a gray zone but is in the neighborhood located much closer to myth-land. It is true that there are no (or very few) calories in diet soda and all things considered, if you reduced your calorie intake and increased your energy expenditure through exercise, a diet soda or two each day will not help or harm. And we do know that regular soda is full of empty calories and sugar so getting away from this stuff is a good idea. The issue here with diet soda is that recent studies suggest that the taste of it may actually trick our bodies into wanting the calories it has been "promised" by the sweet tasting beverage, thus essentially sabotaging our best laid plans.

Diet soda, in moderation, is probably just fine.
FACT. As with anything, moderation is the key. If you enjoy diet soda, go ahead and have one-just not every day/all day. Better choices when the thirst strikes: water and decaf iced tea (particularly green or white). If plain water bores you, try the sparkling kind or throw in some limes, lemons or other fruit for flavor.

Full article here

Artificial additives linked to hyperactivity

Cadbury and Mars to ban artificial food additives
Cadbury and Mars have promised to remove artificial additives from a range of their sweets following a study last week that confirmed a link with hyperactivity in children.

Mars brands which currently use one or more of the suspect additives include Starburst, Skittles and peanut and plain M&Ms. The confectionery giant has committed to removing E104 from M&Ms and all artificial colours from Starburst and Skittles by the end of this year.

Cadbury sweets containing the additives include Maynards wine gums, Bassett Murray Mints, Barratt Flumps and varieties of its Trident chewing gum. A spokesman from Cadbury said that the company had already begun a programme to replace artificial additives in its biggest brands such as Bassett's Liquorice Allsorts and Jelly Babies but has now extended that to all other sweet brands before the end of 2008.

The moves will increase pressure on the Food Standards Agency to support a total ban on the additives.

Prince Charles joined in the debate yesterday at the launch of the Year of Food and Farming, when he warned that a generation of "over-industrialised" children may be poisoning themselves with food additives.

Full article here.

Choosing a healthy breakfast cereal

How healthy is your breakfast cereal?
Choosing a healthy breakfast cereal is not a simple task. The cereal aisle is a long one, full of contradictions. You'll find cereals made with refined grains with nearly no fiber, and cereals made with whole grains and bran boasting 7 grams or more of fiber. There are cereals with so much sugar they seem more like boxes of little cookies. And there are cereals with sugar listed far down on the ingredient list.

But it's well worth the effort, experts say. If you eat cereal almost every day, either for breakfast or as a snack, the cereal you choose can say a lot about your health. It can add a lot of good stuff to your diet -- or it can add a whole lot of nothing.

Choosing a healthy breakfast cereal is mainly about getting some whole grains. There's no excuse not to get at least one serving of whole grains if you eat cereal for breakfast. Recent research suggests those who eat more whole grains are at lower risk of diabetes and heart disease.

Taste or Nutrition?
The trick is finding a breakfast cereal that is full of healthful attributes, low in sugar, and has no saturated fat and trans fat -- but still tastes great! It doesn’t matter how good for you a cereal is; if it doesn’t taste good, you’re probably not going to eat it day after day.

Of course, one person’s perfect whole-grain cereal with less sugar is another person’s bowl of sawdust. If you like breakfast cereals that come in lots of colors and artificial flavors, then yes, you probably do have to choose between taste and nutrition. But if you like a cereal with natural flavors from toasted whole grains, and maybe some nuts and dried fruit, you'll have many healthful cereals to choose from.

And yes, dried fruits do add nutrition to your cereal. A quarter of a cup of raisins, for example, has about 1 1/2 grams of fiber plus 4% of the Recommended Daily Value for vitamin E and about 6% each of the Daily Value for vitamins B-1, B-6, and iron, magnesium, and selenium. But when you look on the nutrition facts label for Raisin Bran, for example, you might be shocked to see there are 19 grams of sugar in a 1-cup serving. What’s going on is that any sugars -- even those from natural sources like dried fruit -- are counted in the sugar grams listed on the label. It may be helpful for the consumer to review the ingredient listing of a Nutrition Fact label to identify added sugars rather than reading the amount of total sugars in the product.

How Much Sugar?
Does the ingredients list for your cereal look a lot like that on, say, a box of cookies? One ounce of Mini Oreo cookies has 11 grams of sugar and 130 calories (34% of its calories come from sugar). And sugar is the second ingredient listed (enriched flour is first). Lots of cereals have ingredient lists that look similar -- like Cookie Crisp Cereal, with 44% calories from sugar.

The U.S. Government's Dietary Reference Intakes recommend that added sugars not exceed 25% of total calories (to ensure sufficient intake of micronutrients). And while there isn’t a specific guideline for cereal, it makes sense to aim for a cereal that gets 25% or less of its calories from sugar. (If the cereal contains dried fruit, this could be a pinch higher.)

While you can find plenty of cereals with 5 grams of fiber per serving or more, some of them go a little bit over the "25% calories from sugar" guideline. But if the percentage of sugar calories is still below 30%, the first ingredient is a whole grain, and the cereal tastes good, it may still be a good choice overall.

8 Good-Tasting Picks
After some taste testing and input from acquaintances, I came up with eight picks for the best-tasting healthful breakfast cereals. The cereals on my list had to have a whole grain as the first ingredient and 5 grams of fiber per serving. Sugar had to be around 25% calories from sugar or less, unless dried fruit was among the top three ingredients. I also tried to choose cereals that are easily found in the supermarket.

Post Grape-Nuts Trail Mix Crunch: 5 grams fiber, and 22% calories from sugar. The first three ingredients are whole grain wheat, malted barley, and sugar, followed by raisins and wheat bran.
Fiber One Bran Cereal: 14 grams fiber, 0% calories from sugar. First three ingredients are whole-grain wheat bran, corn bran, and cornstarch. This cereal only appeals to some people. I would suggest enhancing the flavor with cinnamon, fresh or dried fruit, and/or roasted nuts.
*Fiber One Honey Clusters: 13 grams fiber, 15% calories from sugar. The first three ingredients are whole-grain wheat, corn bran, and wheat bran.
Quaker Oatmeal Squares: 5 grams fiber, 19% calories from sugar. The first three ingredients are whole oat flour, whole-wheat flour, and brown sugar.
Shredded wheat: 6 grams fiber, 0% calories from sugar (for a generic brand). The only ingredient is 100% whole grain cereal. I enjoy this with added fresh or dried fruit and nuts. If you opt for the frosted variety, it has 6 grams fiber and gets 23% of its calories from sugar.
*Frosted Mini Wheats: 6 grams fiber, 24% calories from sugar. The first three ingredients are whole-grain wheat, sugar, and high-fructose corn syrup.
*Raisin Bran: 7 grams fiber, 40% calories from sugar (in Kellogg’s brand). The first three ingredients are whole wheat, raisins, and wheat bran). Sugar is listed fourth in the ingredient list, but many of the calories from sugar come from the raisins.
Kashi Heart to Heart Honey Toasted Oat Cereal: 5 grams fiber, 18% calories from sugar. The first three ingredients are whole oat flour, oat bran, and evaporated cane juice. This is a higher-fiber alternative to Cheerios. I think they taste better, too. But that may be because there is more sweetener added (the evaporated cane juice).

Read the full article here.

* indicates a personal choice (even I wouldn't eat some of these "healthy" options!)

What's the Buzz: Protein

Protein is an essential nutrient that is important to good health. It is used by our bodies to produce and grow muscles, hair, nails, skin and internal organs. Proteins used for synthesis within the body are comprised of amino acids, many of which the body cannot produce on its own. We therefore must ingest protein to supplement the body's amino acid production to enable us to grow, heal, and function normally.

The great thing about protein is that it's not only delicious and nutritious, but easy to get in a variety of forms! Everyone knows that meat contains protein, but so do dairy products, nuts, legumes, and other sources.

Foods that are high in protein:
Meat, fish (including canned tuna)
Eggs or egg substitute
Milk
Yogurt
Cheese (including cottage cheese)
Beans
Soy
Nuts (including peanut butter)
Seeds
Lentils (including peas and chickpeas)
Tofu
Wheat germ or wheat gluten, as contained in--
*Some whole-wheat pastas (check label, look for at least 10g protein per 1 cup serving)
*Some cereals (check label, look for at least 5g protein per serving)

Surprisingly, even though the list above is rather specific, most people consume adequete amounts of protein in their regular diet. The body just doesn't need much to meet it's requirements. In fact, most Americans consume more than enough protein daily. Only a few specific groups of people are at risk for being protein-deficient, including elderly women and people with illnesses or eating disorders. Protein should make up approximately 10-15% of your total daily caloric intake, according to the recommended daily allowances (RDA) set by the Food and Nutrition Board, with the other 85% coming from fat and carbs (15% and 70% respectively). Ideally, one should consume 0.36 grams of protein for every pound of body weight, meaning someone who weighs 120lbs should consume about 43 grams of protein per day and someone weighing 180 lbs needs roughly 64 grams of protein per day unless otherwise advised by a physician. Consuming more than 30% of your daily calories from protein can have adverse effects on the body, as the relative reduction of carbohydrates can cause it to enter a canabalistic state known as "ketosis." Excess protein consumption is especially a concern due to the fact that most sources of animal-protein (meat and dairy) are high in unhealthy saturated fat.

Someone who is having trouble meeting the recommended daily allowance for protein through their regular diet might consider drinking protein shakes, such as the following recipe:

Banana/Peanut Butter Shake (12 grams protein)
8 ounces fat-free milk
1 tablespoon creamy peanut butter
1/4 - 1/2 banana

Blend until smooth in blender.

Protein powders can also be used as an additive to any smoothie/shake-type recipe to boost protein content. A simple alternative is to purchase ready-made meal replacement drinks, such as Ensure, Boost, or SlimFast (check label, look for at least 9-10 grams of protein per 8oz serving). However, remember that these are meant to be meal "replacement" drinks--they are quite high in calories and are NOT intended to supplement your regular meals!

Technically this isn't about food...

But I like coffee, and I like exercise, and so I was intrigued by the following article:

Exercise Plus Coffee May Ward Off Skin Cancer
A coffee habit, coupled with regular exercise, may help prevent skin cancers better than either factor alone, new research suggests.

The study was done only with animals, however, and it's not a reason to abandon standard sun-protection habits. "You should not give up the sunblock," said Dr. Allan H. Conney, senior author of the study, published in this week's Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The findings aren't entirely new. "In earlier studies, we found caffeine and exercise -- either one by themselves -- inhibited ultraviolet light-induced skin cancer in mice," said Conney, the director of the Laboratory for Cancer Research at the School of Pharmacy at Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey. But the new research shows that "the combination [of the two] works better," he said, providing a dramatically better anti-cancer result. Both caffeine and exercise seem to help kill the UVB-damaged cells before malignancy sets in. "We really don't know how that happens," Conney said.

In the study, his team looked at four groups of hairless mice. The rodents' exposed skin is very vulnerable to the sun. One group was given caffeinated water to drink each day, the equivalent of a person drinking a couple of cups of coffee a day, Conney said. Another group ran voluntarily on a running wheel, the equivalent of a person running two or two and a half miles every day, he said. (These mice will happily go on an exercise wheel if one is available, Conney said.) A third group had both the caffeine and the exercise, while a fourth group had neither and served as the control group. The mice in all four groups were exposed to lamps that generated UVB radiation that damaged the skin cells' DNA.

While some degree of healthy, programmed skin cell death ("apoptosis") was seen in all four groups of mice, the caffeine drinkers and exercisers were best at killing off the damaged cells, the researchers found.

To find out how different the four groups were in terms of killing off damaged skin cells, the researchers looked at physical changes in those cells. They also looked at chemical markers, such as enzymes, involved in killing damaged cells. The differences were dramatic. The caffeine drinkers showed a 96 percent increase in damaged cell death compared to the control group and the exercisers showed a 120 percent increase. Even more significant, the mice that drank caffeine and ran on the training wheel had a nearly 400 percent increase in cell death of damaged cells.

A spokesman for the Skin Cancer Foundation urged caution in interpreting the study findings, however. "It will take years of extensive testing to determine whether this will be a worthwhile concept before you can say anything specific about it," said Dr. Michael Gold, founder of the Gold Skin Care Center in Nashville, Tenn.

"Mice and humans are very different. That said, we do know that caffeine applied topically has been popular as a 'cosmeceutical' anti-aging ingredient and might be useful in helping prevent non-melanoma skin cancers," Gold said. "The concept of systemic caffeine needs to be addressed further. We also know that moderate exercise is an immune moderator and can help ward off cancers and other diseases."

He echoed standard advice to wear sunscreen when out in the sun. "If you are exercising outside you must wear sunscreen no matter what," Gold said. "If you don't protect yourself from the sun while exercising outdoors you are increasing your risk of getting non-melanoma skin cancers and melanoma. Protecting yourself from the sun is currently the only proven way to prevent skin cancer."

Read the full article here

Can you tell I really like peanut butter?

Nutty About Peanut Butter
As American as apple pie, peanut butter has made its mark on American cuisine since the early 1900s. Whether it's partnering with jelly on bread or is the featured ingredient in cookie dough, it's an enduring favorite. Most households have a jar of it in the kitchen at all times.

But is peanut butter good for you? Well, like most nut butters, peanut butter is high in fat and calories (with around 190 calories and 16 grams of fat per 2 tablespoons). But the good news is, you get a lot of nutrition for your 190-calorie investment. Nuts and nut butters are a great source of protein, fiber, vitamins, minerals, and phytochemicals.

In 2003 the FDA approved a qualified health claim for peanuts and certain tree nuts. It basically says that scientific evidence suggests that eating 1.5 ounces per day of most nuts (as part of a diet low in saturated fat and cholesterol) may reduce the risk of heart disease.

Most of the research suggesting health benefits to nuts has involved lowering the risk of heart or cardiovascular disease or their risk factors. But there is some evidence nuts may help with other diseases as well. For example, peanuts are a source of the phytochemical resveratrol (also found in grape skins and red wine). A recent German study explored resveratrol's possible cancer-preventing effects in colorectal cells.

Acts Like a Nut
The funny thing is, the peanut is actually a legume, native to South America, that happens to look and taste like a nut.

Nutritionally, peanuts act like nuts, too. About half their weight comes from fat, with the rest split fairly evenly between protein and carbohydrate (with fiber). About half of their total fat comes from monounsaturated fat, the kind that is linked to more healthful blood lipid levels. One-third of the fat comes from polyunsaturated fat (all of which is omega-6 fatty acid, not the superhealthy omega-3). About 14% of the fat is naturally saturated.

What to Look for in Peanut Butter
When shopping for peanut butter, look for a natural style product with little to no added fat or sugar. Some companies add partially hydrogenated oils to the regular type of peanut butter. And depending on the amount added, this could add trans fats into the equation.

When it comes to sodium, even most natural brands of peanut butter add some salt for flavor. A little goes a long way, though. Around 120 milligrams sodium per 2 tablespoons usually does the trick!

'PB' Without the 'J'
Here are 10 tips for eating peanut butter beyond the PB&J:

- Spread peanut butter on whole-grain toast or bagels instead of butter or cream cheese.
- Add peanut butter to fat-free or low-fat salad dressings (with compatible flavors) for added thickness and flavor. Beat them together until smooth -- using an electric mixer, small food processor, or whisk.
- Add peanut butter to muffin or pancake batters instead of butter or margarine (when the taste is compatible).
- Add peanut butter to smoothies, especially chocolate- or banana-flavored smoothies.
- Add peanut butter to stir-fry sauces for added flavor and thickness.
- When making peanut butter cookies, keep the peanut butter, but for the butter/margarine the recipe calls for, substitute a less-fat margarine (one with 8 grams of fat or less per tablespoon).
- Peanut butter adds plant fat and protein to make a well-rounded, satisfying snack out of whole-wheat crackers, sliced apples or bananas, or celery sticks.
- Make a vanilla or chocolate peanut butter treat by mixing a tablespoon of natural peanut butter into 1/2 cup of light vanilla or chocolate ice cream or frozen yogurt.
- Add peanut butter to granola bar recipes for extra flavor and to help bind the oats and other ingredients together.
- Use whole-grain bread and less-sugar jam to whip up a healthier peanut butter sandwich

Peanut Butter Safety
Recently, the FDA warned consumers not to eat certain jars of peanut butter produced by a particular plant in Georgia, which may be contaminated with salmonella. Historically, it has been the potentially carcinogenic aflatoxin -- produced by particular fungi -- that was the thing to watch in peanut butter, not the notorious salmonella (usually linked to poultry and raw eggs). Aflatoxin can contaminate grains and nuts before harvest or during storage. Corn and peanuts are thought to be at highest risk of aflatoxin contamination.

One of the best things you can do to minimize aflatoxins in the future is to store your grains and nuts in a dry, cool environment. That's why I always refrigerate my peanut butter and freeze nuts that I’m not going to use right away.

To prevent rancidity in your peanut butter, keep your jar of natural-style peanut butter in the refrigerator. And if you don’t go through a lot of peanut butter, buy the smaller sized jars.

Read the full article here.

You probably know someone just like this

Today I want to write about two different types of people who both are very misguided in their approach to a sensible diet. Both are attempting to lose weight. One just wants the weight off, no matter how it happens; the other wants to be healthy but is extremely naive and gets caught up in all the latest trends and hype, and caters blindly to a set of ever-changing "rules" about what comprises a good, healthy diet.

The first person is the desperate dieter. This person will go to extreme lengths to lose weight, claims to be determined to lose weight, and yet is only interested in the "quick fix" approach and refuses to make the necessary lifestyle changes to actually accomplish her goals. For example, this person might start drinking a "weight loss tea" on Monday morning, two weeks before planning to attend an event that she wants to look her best for. The tea makes her sick--literally. She has violent boughts of vomiting and diarrhea. Simultaneously and repeatedly, lasting the whole day and into the next morning. She is so sick at one point that it actually starts to scare her. By Tuesday afternoon she feels mostly alright again so she makes some more tea for herself.

What is wrong with this picture?? Does the above approach seem like a reasonable way to lose weight to any rational, sane person? What exactly does the tea claim to do, I'd like to know. Is it marketed as a laxative or is it actually supposed to suppress the appetite or enable you to burn more calories somehow? Do they even bother to make a logical argument as to how it works, or is it just "miracle tea"? Sure, one might lose some weight this way... perhaps even five pounds or so in just a few days. Of water weight. Purely as a result of being radically dehydrated. To the desperate dieter, though, five pounds is five pounds; who cares where it comes from??

The second person is the uninformed dieter. This person takes any new information she receives, regardless of the source, as the gospel truth. One day she might hear that chocolate is good for the heart. She immediately tells all her friends, sends e-mails to all her co-workers, and revels in being able to eat chocolate again (since she had long since written it off as a no-no food). The next day someone tells her that the chocolate is bad for the skin. How disappointing, she says, and gives up chocolate again. For months or even years she has been eating whole grain bread for the health benefits. Then one day she reads something on the Internet that says the gluten in wheat bread is bad for women. She does not question why--something about women's hormones, she asserts--or in what way. Instead she sighs and throws her hands up in the air and resigns to eating potato bread from now on, or rye. Some of the new information she hears might conflict with old information. No matter; she assumes something new has been discovered that discounts the previous claims. Next week she might be convinced to choose real sugar over artificial sweetener only to revert back a day later; it's ok to eat eggs one month but the next month some new evidence says it's not again.

At least the uninformed dieter is attempting to be healthy, but at what point would she begin to question some of these "facts" and seek out the truth on her own? If someone she's never met who has no credentials or authority on the matter claimed that eating three tablespoons of lard every evening prevents cancer, would she go out and buy a tub of lard? I think she would. And she'd eat her lard adamantly, every evening, vehemently spreading the news about the benefits of lard, until the day someone else mentioned to her that saturated fats can raise cholesterol levels. And then she'd throw away the lard and shake her head in disappointment because maybe she was really enjoying the lard (pretend with me for a moment here). And yet she would still not learn that one cannot simply assume that everything she reads or hears or THINKS she hears is factual. For an indeterminate period of time, everything she eats will be dictated by what she thinks she "should" be eating, based not on tried and true scientific research or even, God forbid, her actual preferences, but solely on the latest rumors pertaining to optimal health and weight loss. She may actually be successful in losing weight and achieving good health; if she is, it is purely luck of the draw as she's no better off imposing such wildly fluctuating restrictions on herself than she would be to just use common sense and practice moderation. She's only setting herself up to grow weary of the whole scene and/or become so dependent on outside guidance that she feels she can no longer "trust" any food, let alone her own body. And really, can anyone consider that to be truly healthy??

World's easiest* peanut butter cookies

Re1 cup peanut butter
1 cup brown sugar
1 egg

That is the original recipe in it's entirety, but I've always added 1/2 cup oatmeal to bulk it up a bit and add some texture. This is the only thing I think I've ever cooked that I don't need instructions for!

Bake at 350 for 8-10 minutes (mine have always taken more like 11-13, probably due in part to the extra ingredient and also the fact that I make big, fat cookies!).

Makes about two dozen small or 18 large cookies.

Give them a try!

*and possibly the best, you be the judge

What's the Buzz: HFCS

WHAT IS IT? High-fructose corn syrup is produced by milling corn to produce corn starch then processing the corn starch to yield corn syrup. The corn syrup at that point is almost entirely glucose. Enzymes that change the glucose into fructose, which is sweeter than glucose, are added. The resulting syrup (after enzyme conversion) contains approximately 90% fructose and is known as HFCS 90. To make the other common forms of HFCS, the HFCS 90 is mixed with 100% glucose corn syrup in the appropriate ratios to form the desired HFCS. The typical types of HFCS are: HFCS 90 (most commonly used in baked goods) which is approximately 90% fructose and 10% glucose; HFCS 55 (most commonly used in soft drinks and comparable in sweetness to table sugar) which is approximately 55% fructose and 45% glucose; and HFCS 42 (most commonly used in sports drinks) which is approximately 42% fructose and 58% glucose.

The process by which HFCS is produced was first developed in 1957, then refined in the 1970s. Over the period of about 1975-1985, HFCS was rapidly introduced in many processed foods and soft drinks in the US. Since that time, HFCS has replaced cane sugar in a large variety of foods in the USA. The main reasons for this switch are:

- HFCS blends easily with sweeteners, acids, and flavorings and is easier to transport because it is a liquid.
- HFCS usage leads to products with a much longer shelf life because it retains moisture, resists drying out, controls crystallization, and prevents microbiological growth.
- HFCS is cheaper due to the relative abundance of corn, farm subsidies, and sugar import tariffs in the United States.

From a manufacturer's point of view, HFCS is a revolutionary advance in food science!


WHY IS THIS A CONCERN? Fructose is one component of sucrose (cane or table sugar), which also naturally contains glucose. In laboratory and human tests, it has been found that excess sucrose increases blood levels of cholesterol, triglyceride (another type of fat), uric acid, insulin, and cortisol--all associated with an increased risk of heart disease. Sucrose also raises blood pressure and increases the fragility of blood platelet cells, making them more prone to clotting. As dramatic as those findings were, when substituting pure fructose for sucrose in the same experiments, the effects are magnified with fructose. Fructose was determined to be, in effect, "the dangerous part" of sucrose. In contrast, glucose did little more than cause cavities. Studies have also concluded that pure fructose produces significantly higher fasting plasma triacylglycerol values (a risk factor for cardiovascular disease) than a pure glucose diet. While fructose has been advocated for years as a safe sugar for diabetics because it doesn't trigger a rapid rise in blood sugar, the cardiovascular consequences of consuming large amounts of fructose may outweigh the benefits for diabetics who already face a higher than average risk of developing heart disease.

It is an interesting thing about fructose, that it does not stimulate insulin secretion and does not require insulin to be transported into cells like other carbohydrates, and at first this may seem like a great thing. However, the lack of insulin response can be viewed by some as a double-edged sword because insulin also controls the fate of another hormone--leptin. Essentially, leptin signals the brain to stop sending hunger signals when you've had enough to eat. Since fructose doesn't stimulate insulin, there will be no subsequent increase in leptin levels, thus no feeling of satiety achieved by consuming fructose alone.

Some advocates of HFCS (notably, those who manufacture goods containing HFCS or benefiting from it's production) regard such findings as "media hype", stating that information about the effects of HFCS have been "blown out of proportion" because the aforementioned studies looked at the effects of fructose alone and not actual HFCS in a relastic context. High fructose corn syrup, they proclaim, actually contains varying ratios of fructose and glucose, which are roughly the same products produced by the breakdown of natural sucrose in the body. Still, as evidenced by a myriad of other independant lab experiments, even large quantities of the natural from sucrose are known to stimulate the liver to produce triglycerides, promote glycation of proteins, and induce insulin resistance which can be a contributing factor in developing diabetes. We now know this to be especially true of fructose, regardless of whether it is 100% pure fructose or a mixture of fructose and glucose.

While some forms of HFCS may not inherently be more dangerous than natural sucrose, the problem comes with the sheer quantity of "hidden" fructose being consumed through the HFCS in processed foods: most people are surprised to learn of the abundance of HFCS in foods we don't normally associate with being "sweet", from breads to pasta sauces to bacon and even beer. Its commonly used in so-called "health products" like protein bars and energy drinks, and of course in candy and soda pop. Overall sweetener consumption, and in particular high-fructose mixtures, has increased since the introduction of HFCS. Thus, the proportion of fructose as a component of overall sweetener intake in the United States has increased since the early 1980s.


WHAT ABOUT FRUIT? Fructose is commonly known as "fruit sugar." So does this mean fruit has the same effects on the body as HFCS?

Fortunately, natural sources are much less potent simply because the quantity of pure fructose consumed is significantly less than found in most processed foods. Fructose accounts for only 5 to 7 percent of the weight of cherries, pears, bananas, grapes, and apples. That's about 5 to 8 teaspoons per pound of fresh fruit. There's even less fructose--2 to 3 percent, or roughly 2 to 3 teaspoons per pound--in strawberries, blackberries, blueberries, oranges, and grapefruit. Compare this to conventional soft drinks, which almost universally contain 11 percent HFCS by weight--a whopping 2.2 pounds per case. Honey, refined by bees, contains 40 percent fructose, but its extreme sweetness deters most people from consuming it in large amounts.


THE FINAL VERDICT: Though many hazards are associated with fructose and HFCS, the overall ill effects appear to be largely dose dependent, according to experts. There is very real concern with a diet that is comprised predominantly of processed foods, especially as younger generations become more frequently exposed to convenience diets. Conversely, if you eat primarily whole, natural foods, and avoid large quantities of processed or sweetened foods, you have little to worry about with an occasional sugary treat. "We have not taken a no-sugar stance," one nutritionist says. "We have taken a no-excessive-sugar stance."

Why a blog about food?

Because I like food. I like to eat food, I like to learn about food, and I like to share what I know about food.

I don't like a lot of the negative associations that have arisen concerning food, such as the idea that it is a necessary evil we must strive to defeat if we are to be healthy and happy with ourselves. I also dislike the concept that food is merely fuel for our bodies and should have no emotional or psychological ties. There is a middle ground; it can be so simple as to be instinctive to even the youngest child. In fact, children set a great example for the rest of us.

This is a place for me to post information, thoughts, and feelings. I welcome the same in return.