Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: Georgia, on the Florida line, right above Tallahassee
10,471 posts, read 15,838,455 times
Reputation: 6438
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by OpenD
I think the High Fructose Sugar paranoia is overblown. Cane sugar is 50% fructose, 50% sucrose, both sugars. Fructose is the one that naturally occurs in fruit. HFCS is 60% fructose, 40% sucrose. Because fructose is sweeter tasting, they can actually use a little less of HFCS than they would cane sugar.
People are just looking for a scapegoat, when the real issue is self evident... huge portions of foods and drinks containing sugar.
I just wasn't expecting to see it there. I agree. Moderation is key.
When I first read there was corn syrup in my store bread, I didn't believe it. Then I looked at the ingredients. "High fructose corn syrup." I'm eating sugar bread.
Of course there is sugar in your bread... that's what yeast feeds on to produce the CO2 that makes the bread rise. Much of it is gone by the time you get it, along with all the alcohol those yeast cells also produce.
I'm going to eat sugar as long as I live. I'm allergic to most sweeteners and don't like the taste anyhow. I like sugar and the taste and I'm sorry if others can't eat it. I rank it right up there with a good creamy chocolate! Yay for sugar! And my culinary skills would greatly suffer without it.
I take it you did not read this, because it actually says the opposite of what you are claiming. The point is that all of the contents of that long text, supposedly from Johns Hopkins... including the "sugar feeds cancer" point you claimed... are A HOAX.
Further, if you follow the link within the Snopes posting to the Johns Hopkins site, you'll see they disavow this claim.
And the Dana-Farber link says about this claim: "To cut to the chase: it's not that simple. There is not a 1:1 ratio or direct link between eating a bite of sugar and the resulting growth of a certain number of cancer cells."
Sugar is not selective to cancer cells, it actually feeds all cells equally.
I take it you did not actually read this, because it actually says the opposite of what you are claiming. The point is that all of the contents of that long text, supposedly from Johns Hopkins... including the "sugar feeds cancer" point you claimed... are A HOAX.
Further, if you follow the link within the Snopes posting to the Johns Hopkins site, you'll see they disavow this claim.
Sugar is not selective to cancer cells, it actually feeds all cells equally.
I included that link to balance the post to neutral. Some agreed info, some didn't. YOU decide!
Good links; I have done enough research previously to be convinced.
I won't take the bait from the people posting here who refuse to believe it. If they want to they can look it up on their own.
Ignorance is bliss for some (most) people.
Good links; I have done enough research previously to be convinced.
I won't take the bait from the people posting here who refuse to believe it. If they want to they can look it up on their own.
Ignorance is bliss for some (most) people.
Yes, it truly is!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm eating sugar bread.
