If anyone can help me understand: what is the difference between eating a food with a certain fructose percentage on HFCS, and a fruit which has the same amount of fructose?
And what is the difference on drinking some artificial drink with a fructose percentage, and pure fruit juice, containing the same amount of fructose?
I saw a presentation once arguing that fruits come with "the poison and the cure", in that the fibers counter the fructose. But that doesn't sound very healthy under the perspective of the study, does it?
Also, does that mean that, again assuming what the study says, its better to eat glucose based sugar foods than eating fruits, on the "sugar" perspective?
Also, in the case of the juice, if it doesn't have the fibers that the fruit has, is it just as bad as soda then (assuming same fructose proportions, of course)?
Although there are plenty of junk juices out there -- the other bad things in soda give it an edge in nastiness over fruit juice.
For example: acidity. Typical pH ranges of colas are 2.5 - 4.2. It literally causes your body to breath faster (exhaling CO2 makes you more alkaline) and if necessary pull calcium out of your bones to maintain your body's pH between 7.35-7.45. If your pH drops below 7.35 you go into acidosis; much farther and you die.
Drink excessive soda and avoid exercise if you want weak bones and osteoporosis.
Right, but I dont mean junk juices. I mean natural fruit juices, the one just out of the fruit. They are supposedly full of fructose and no fibers, right? So are they just as bad, on a fructose point of view (as in supposedly has the bad side effects the article lists) as a cola with the same amount of fructose derived from HFCS in it?
Theoretically, maybe, but in practice, the food industry's HFCS sources are typically of abysmally low quality. It's almost entirely from genetically modified corn which has been reported to cause kidney problems for some people.
Thanks for the explanation. The effects of the fructose enumerated on the article, tho, are the same.
I did read about the difference in proportions being the biggest propel fact too, it was mentioning a cup of tomato had about 3g of fructose, whereas a regular soft drink had +25g (don't recall the real numbers)
And what is the difference on drinking some artificial drink with a fructose percentage, and pure fruit juice, containing the same amount of fructose?
I saw a presentation once arguing that fruits come with "the poison and the cure", in that the fibers counter the fructose. But that doesn't sound very healthy under the perspective of the study, does it?
Also, does that mean that, again assuming what the study says, its better to eat glucose based sugar foods than eating fruits, on the "sugar" perspective?