Hydrogenated vegetable oil or butter?

ralleia,

The meme that says:
glucose -- good
fructose -- bad

Is silly. Fructose is converted to glucose in the body without fanfare.
Hyperinsulinemia *does* appear to be one of a number of root problems, but it is due mostly from obesity and ingestion of simple carbs. Obesity causes insulin resistance, while simple carbs through rapid GI absorbtion leads to high blood peak concentrations and an altered GI endocrine environment.

 

That indicates that you may have phenylketonuria, which is the inability to handle the protein in aspartame. Other foods with this protein are now labeled.

 

Didn't say "glucose good, fructose bad." If that's all the doctor wanted to say, then I'm sure that he could have said it in less than 90 minutes.

And according to the organic chemistry discussion presented by the doctor, fructose does NOT ever get converted to glucose. How many organic chem classes did you take, by the way? I took one at least.

Did you even listen to the organic chemistry portion of the video that I posted? Get back to me after you do, and I'll help you find the guy's address so you can write him a letter to tell him that his chemistry is all wrong.

 

Oh, c'mon. You're going to diagnose a rare genetic disorder on the basis of me vomiting up a can of Fresca?

It doesn't mean that I have anything. You eat something poisonous, and if you are lucky then your body decides to get rid of it. Pretty simple.

I strongly doubt that I have any rare undiagnosed genetic disorders. I'm healthy as a horse, bore a healthy, vigorous, thriving child, and I'm a genetic cross-breed, so the likelihood that both breeding pools carried the recessive gene is pretty much zero. No problems whatsoever, unless allergy to tree and grass pollen means that I have some other rare disorder.

 

I know.
Everything I've ever read about aspartame suggests it was created in hell by demons bent on undermining all that is noble in humanity.

I'm sure I'm opening small yellow packets of slow death. I immediately flash forward to a 100 years in the future where people exclaim "Can You Imagine They Actually Consumed This Stuff?".

And yet? I cannot back away. I cannot obstain. The siren call of low calorie soda, magically sweet tasting but calorie free lures me to raise the cup to my parched lips.

Coke Zero...Pepsi Max...I embrace thee my evil brothers! If you lead me to my mortal rest? So be it.

I have long ago given up the folley of trying to exist in a state of perfection.

 

OK, let me change tact. You either have imaginary symptoms, are lying, have problems with something else, or have trouble with the protein in naspertane.

In other words your story is either bs, has nothing to do with aspertane, or you have a problem. A problem is unlikely but people have genetic diseases. My gf has celiac. Many people have much more mild alergies to wheat but have no idea. Although aspertane contains a natural protein (artificially synthesized) does not mean some people do not metabolize it properely. I said you may have a problem with said protein, not that you do.

That is pretty much a bad way to diagnose. Try some equal on some grapefruit and see if you puke

 

I specifically asked my doctor, and he recommended staying with the Niaspan. I'm taking his advice. I'll switch to the generic when it becomes available.

Americans have not embraced a low-saturated-fat, high carb diet. Americans have embraced a high-fat, high-sugar, high-white-flour, high-salt diet. Those Americans who have been following good health guidelines (healthier fats, fewer overall calories, and exercise) are healthier than ever. Those who reject those guidelines are fatter than ever.

 

Wow I had no idea Sucralose was a chlorinated compound. Food for thought. Lately I have buying some sugarfree candy at Walmart, good stuff. Basically hoping sugarfree is better than sugar with a family history of Type_II diabetes.

 

Very few foods are extremely bad in moderation. But coconut oil is more saturated than butter or lard, and all fats are high in calories, and a balanced diet does not require the addition of any added fats. All necessary dietary fat can be obtained from a balanced diet without the use of butter, lard, or oil. Almost all foods have fats in them naturally, and when eaten, in moderation, in their natural form, provide all the fat you need.

There's nothing wrong with eating coconut, in moderation. I like coconut, and would eat it more often if it was not so hard to get at.

But as oils go, tropical oils are worse than other natural (unprocessed) oils.

And I don't consider the N.Y. Times food section to be a particularly reliable source of nutritional information. I expect a food reporter to know what tastes good. I don't expect him to necessarily understand the science of nutrition.

 

Check the label. And talk to your doctor. Some "sugar free" candy is just made with sugars other than sucrose. I once looked at some sugar-free candy. It was made of fructose, which is a sugar. Maybe it's not as bad for diabetics as sucrose. I don't know. But I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that a diabetic would be better off not eating either.

But ask your doctor before you assume that "sugar-free" candy is okay to eat.

 

Well, the second thing sounds right, your first statement seems to be saying the oposite.

First statement makes no sense. All saturated fats are equally saturaated. That is they have all carbon single bonds.

The main saturated fat in coconut is a medium chain fatty acid which nutritionists now believe are healthy. These are easily broken down by the liver, and are thought to be a natural anti-viral. Saturated animal fat is made up of long chain fatty acids.

Sure you can get your nutrition from whole foods or from other sources, but most of us do at least eat some non raw foods. What is the matter of say someone growing up in malaysia using coconut milk? Do you have a problem with that. Baking bread is with all natural ingredients creates a processed food that is chemically altered by grinding and baking, but you seem fine with that choice. I have friends that have gone grainless and feel it is much more healthy.

yes, but your point is?

OK so In your opinion its all bad, but tropical oils are worse because they are harder for you to get at?

I figured the journal of clinical nutrition or NE Journal of medicine was a bit over your head. You have the tools to check out the research.

 

Earth balance, expensive but tastes better then butter, made from coconuts.... Which if you aren't looking thru rose glasses and actually understand... Is good for your body
Btw earth balance is labeled as margarine, you know the stuff that was invented as turkey feed but it killed all the birds so they fed it to humans, it's a money-ethics thing, anyway, it's not margarine, it's earth balance

 

lol. It was invented for the french navy, because butter would spoil on the ship. The idea was also for poor folks that could not afford butter.
Food Ingredient: The Invention of Margarine
http://www.snopes.com/food/warnings/butter.asp


clearly my body is no temple. But just trying to straighten out some facts. That earth ballance coconut probably tastes great on sauteed vegetables.

 

Well, lets see ...
A year of O chem in Med School
A year of Biochem in Med School
4 years of Chemical Pathology Residency

 

^^Ah ha, no PChem?
Well I am not a dr but according to Google you are correct fructose can indeed convert to glucose in the liver. But at least Ralleia posted a very popular YouTube link: Sugar: the Bitter Truth. I did not have time to watch it. I was hoping Wiki gave some critique but they did not.

Here is some rebuttal or critique-

 

Glucose is what powers us. Everything else that we eat for energy converts down to it. The exceptions generally involve neutralizing some toxic substance, not producing cellular energy.

Tom

 

lol

P-chem too. I loved that topic, of all my textbooks from those years the P-chem book was one of the few I still own. Biochemisty was a favorite too.

Many years have passed though, and as my earlier confusion wrt trans fats in this thread shows, much has been forgotten. Qbee has it right though -- glucose is a common pathway molecule, and it is close to common sense to realize that common sugars we eat every day have shared catabolic pathways. If memory serves (probably not!), fructose is phosphorylated and then isomerized to G6P. That may be the academic distinction that confused the other poster, but it is not a sound clinical argument. It just reflects delta G requirements for enzyme kinetics. Like many, many other molecules in metabolic pathways.

 

Glucose is a central molecule to be sure, but e.g fat cannot be converted to glucose, and is not anabolic. Its oxidation is by way of breakdown to 2 carbon fragments mostly, and then entry into the krebs cycle. Some amino acids can be converted to glucose, some cannot.

 

Dr SageBrush,
I don't mean to chirp in, but you probably mean fat is converted to energy in beta oxidation which is always aerobic (using oxygen), while glucose can be used aerobically or anaerobically. Protein is broken down to amino acids and produce energy inefficiently in the citric acid cycle.

Didn't watch the video, but what that doctor was probably talking about was the different metabolic pathways of fructose versus glucose. Leaving sperm out of it, fructose is mainly broken down in the liver and can not be used directly by your muscles or brain like glucose. IIRC, the first enzyme is fructokinase. There are 2 versions fructokinase a and fructokinase c, and it is thought that people that can not properly make fruktokinase a may have no regulation of the process. This becomes a problem when high levels of fructose are present. The liver can convert the fructose to energy, or glycogen, or fat. Fructose consumption does not signal fullness like glucose. If it gets converted to glycogen this is then catabalized to glucose when energy is needed. Which leads us too much fructose which is present in high fructose corn syrup and table sugar (sucrose) can make you fat, and some people are more genetically prone to problems. The main difference between table sugar and hfcs is the glucose and fructose are part of a single molecule of sucrose which adds one more step in the body to break them apart. In one rat experiment, rats eating hfcs gained more weight than those eating sucrose, other experiments are being conducted to see if this holds true for humans.

 

Argh. Right you are! Thanks for the correction