![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
On MSN's front page today, there is a link to a list of good/bad foods. It notes that coffee has moved into the "good" category, and a couple of ounces of dark chocolate per day, also "good." It notes that soda is generally bad, indicating new information that soda with high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is also high in "reactive carbonyls," which may pose a significant risk for triggering type-II diabetes.
If you do a little research you'll find that sucrose has no reactive carbonyls, but that HFCS does indeed include reactive carbonyls. You may find that the average soda contains 5 times the concentration of reactive carbonyls as in blood. (you've got about 6 quarts of blood -- consuming a 12 ounce soda would then boost your reactive carbonyls by about 30%).
Scared?
Here's what they don't tell you: a sucrose molecule is a combination of one glucose molecule and one fructose molecule, and when it gets to the intestine, the two are dissociated, forming a mix of 50:50 glucose and fructose. HFCS is 45:55 glucose and fructose. The reactive carbonyl is on the glucose (in sucrose, it's where the glucose and fructose are stuck together, so it's no longer "reactive"). So taking a similar amount of sucrose, you end up absorbing MORE reactive carbonyl than with HFCS.
By the way, polysaccharides (starch) are composed of chains of glucose, which are broken down in the mouth, stomach, and intestine into individual glucose molecules, each of which contains a reactive carbonyl.
There are good reasons to avoid HFCS. Some people don't like the taste. Some people don't like the corn-industry politics. But there is no significant difference, health-wise, between sucrose and HFCS. And don't buy into the scare of the "reactive carbonyl."
If you do a little research you'll find that sucrose has no reactive carbonyls, but that HFCS does indeed include reactive carbonyls. You may find that the average soda contains 5 times the concentration of reactive carbonyls as in blood. (you've got about 6 quarts of blood -- consuming a 12 ounce soda would then boost your reactive carbonyls by about 30%).
Scared?
Here's what they don't tell you: a sucrose molecule is a combination of one glucose molecule and one fructose molecule, and when it gets to the intestine, the two are dissociated, forming a mix of 50:50 glucose and fructose. HFCS is 45:55 glucose and fructose. The reactive carbonyl is on the glucose (in sucrose, it's where the glucose and fructose are stuck together, so it's no longer "reactive"). So taking a similar amount of sucrose, you end up absorbing MORE reactive carbonyl than with HFCS.
By the way, polysaccharides (starch) are composed of chains of glucose, which are broken down in the mouth, stomach, and intestine into individual glucose molecules, each of which contains a reactive carbonyl.
There are good reasons to avoid HFCS. Some people don't like the taste. Some people don't like the corn-industry politics. But there is no significant difference, health-wise, between sucrose and HFCS. And don't buy into the scare of the "reactive carbonyl."
