Sugar is sugar - half 1 - watts with that?

KIP Hansen guest attachment – July 26, 2025 – 1700 words

“Maiss syrup with high fructose” is only a formula to make them obese and diabetics, “said RFK JR ..” [ source ] That is the narrative in the wild and crazy eating world. It is based on the ubiquitous, ubiquitous mistake of confusing association and time costs with causality.

“In 2004, Bray et al. (Link) published the hypothesis that HFCs is a direct causal factor for obesity. They based their hypothesis on a time relationship between HFCS use and obesity rates between 1960 and 2000.” [ source ]

In this paper this is the money graphic:

[Extra points to readers who can see what was omitted from this graph – which omission substantially negates Bray’s hypothesis. ]

# # # # # #

Hochfructose maize syrup (HFCS) is only sugar.

What do we mean when we use the word “sugar” in the daily language? Most of us mean “table sugar” -which white granular sugar are delivered in our sugar shells or in small packages in the café or in 5 -pound bags from the grocery store.

And what is “table sugar”? It is sucrose.

There are many sugar in the natural world. A “sugar” in biochemistry is “one of the soluble, crystalline, typically sweet carbohydrates in living tissues and illustrated by glucose and sucrose.” There are several other sugar in food: fructose, lactose, maltose, galactose.

Here is an overview of the most common sugar that people take in their diet:

Sucrose: Chemical formula – C12H22O111

This is our frequent white table sugar. It is the most frequently used sweetener in food and drinks. Saccharosis is a composite sugar, a disaccharide that consists of exactly 50% fructose and 50% glucose, a molecule connected to each other.

glucose: Chemical formula – C6H12O6

Glucose is the most important source of energy in all organisms. Glucose circulates as blood sugar in the blood of animals. Food glucose can be absorbed directly and is then often referred to as “blood sugar”.

Dextrose, also marked with D-glucose, is another name for glucose-sie are the same molecule. D-glucose with water (H2O) becomes dextrose monohydrate and is one of the two sugar from which corn syrup with high fructose (HFCS) consists [the other is fructose].

Fructose: Chemical formula – C6H12O6

Fructose is often referred to as “fructose” and is the sugar in fruits and plants. It has the same chemical formula as glucose, but has a slightly different structure. The liver converts a significant part of fructose into glucose for distribution in the bloodstream.

lactose: Chemical formula – C12H22O111

Lactose is a disaccharide made of galactose and glucose. It has the same chemical formula as sucrose, but has a slightly different structure. In mammalic milk, it is generally known as “milk sugar”.

Galactose: Chemical formula – C6H12O6

Galactose is one of the sugar from which the disaccharide lactose is made. It has the same chemical formula as fructose. It is sometimes called “milk sugar”.

Maltose: Chemical formula – C12H22O111

Maltosis or malting sugar is a disaccharide that is formed from two glucose units. It has the same chemical formula as lactose. It can be found in sprouting seeds where you stopped and then dried, known as malt. Malz bar is used to produce beers and whiskeys, while other malt grains used to produce mälzes, maltess and malt taste.

[Click to view larger image]

All of these sugar are metabolized and used by the body as primary energy sources: mainly by converting into glucose. The dietary glucose does not require processing by the body and can be absorbed directly and can get into the bloodstream as a “blood sugar”, the energy source of your body. Other sugar require a breakdown or conversion, mainly into simple glucose.

[Note: This biological chemistry is far more complicated than this simple explanation but it suffices for this essay.]

“Food sugar is absorbed in the liver portal cycle [in the liver] as glucose, fructose or galactosis. The intestine and the liver are required to process fructose and galactosis in glucose, lactate and fatty acids. “

“Fatty acids” sound bad for our ears; We have a bad picture of acids and fat. “Fatty acids (mainly in the form of triglycerides) are … the most important memory shape of fuel in most animals.” [ source ] Lactate, as well as a “waste-none product of anaerobic glycolysis [utilization of glucose in the muscles] With several harmful effects, it is now better than “a easily accessible fuel that is transferred throughout the body, but also as a metabolic buffer. [ source ]

Why does this sugar focus?

The war against sugar is the narrative of nutritional science, in which it is: “Sugar is bad because we eat too much” – is then used to slander food producers who use sugar in their products – as unnecessary, too much, false – an endless attack on a substance that is not only innocent, but also a necessary part of the human fabric network and the main source for most food in the earth.

The war against sugar has turned into war against food (UPFS) (and here and here). Why do I think that the nutritional war (especially the hobby horse of nutritional science, the so-called ultra-processed food UPF) slandered, is a sequel, an expansion of the war against sugar?

All anti-UPF studies have a common ground that looks like this:

All other categories are either a bit advantageous or “nothing done/without effect”, since the uncertainty bars for the Hazard ratio include one. I discuss this in detail what Junk Nutrition science looks like. In each research paper via so-called UPFS, the results reflect the above diagram of the hazard relationships against the harmful effects that are claimed for UPFS, all come from the covered consumption of sugar of all types, which normally through sugar-containing drinks and sweetened snacks, the meat, meat and meat, and the diabetes, and the diabetes, that of meat hunger and the defamation and defamation and the statement, and the diabetes, and the diabetes, and diabetes, and diabetes, and diabetes, and diabetes, and the diabetes and the statement and weight of diabetes, they correspond. None of the other subcategories of UPFS shows clinically significant negative effects.

The war against food was more than adequately covered here, as connected above, but let us see a little a little to see a large battlefield of this combined scientific wars: corn syrup with high fructose syrup (HFCS).

Maiss syrup with high fructose (HFCS)

There are important things that you need to know about corn syrup with high fruit trains.

I will first quote the current information from the US Food and Drug Administration (US -FDA) “Fructose Maiss syrup and answers”:

Maiss syrup is only glucose: “HFCs come from cornstarch. Strength itself is a chain of glucose molecules (a simple sugar). Berries appear. “

Corn syrup with high fructose is only fructose and glucose, approximately 50/50: “The most common forms of HFCs contain either 42 percent or 55 percent fructose. The rest of the HFCs is glucose and water. Glukose in HFCS 42 and HFCS 55 is similar to that of saccharosis.”

[Note: The ratio of fructose/glucose in HFCS is 42/53 or 55/42, both approximately 50/50. Other sugars make up the remaining 5 and 3 %s. Water is not included in the percentages. ]

How does HFCs differ from our common table sugar, sucrose? Chemical binding combines glucose and fructose.

Compared to table sugar, the corn syrup with high fructose corn in fructose is either in fructose as HFCS 42 or somewhat higher than HFCS 55. The FDA uses this language “The proportion of fructose in glucose in both HFCS 42 and in HFCS 55 is similar to that of sucrose.”

As a note, the ratio of pure apple juice is generally about 66/34 fructose/glucose -much higher in fructose than one of the two standard HFCs formulations.

HFCS conclusion:

HFCs is only sugar water with approximately the same ratio of fructose and glucose such as table sugar (sucrose). “Maiss syrup with high fructose (HFCS) is a fructose glucose-fluid-sweet alternative to sucrose (common table sugar).” [ source ] Some HFCs are lower in fructose and some HFCs are higher compared to table sugar. HFCs is a liquid because the sugar is mixed with water.

With the basics dealt with here in Part 1, Part 2 focuses on the question:

If HFCs is only sugar water with a similar composition Why is it disparaging to test sugar?

# # # # # #

The author's comment:

As with other science wars, this topic is simply too complex and complicated to cover it in under 1500 words. So I spilled it in two parts: this introduction, which will soon be followed by a dissection of “science” that was used to transform HFCs into a bad guy.

For a long time I have found that human nutrition as a subject is a field of science that suffers the most from fashion symptoms that are based on the poor science and become self -concentrated and become self -reinforcing: unpublished hypothesis, which becomes “facts” through simple repetition.

Please limit your comments to the materials presented in this essay in Part 1. HFCs is at the center of a whirlwing controversy with opinions that vary wildly. In part 2 I will cover the studies that have been produced via HFCs.

Like this:

Related

Do you discover more from watts?

By Mans Life Daily