I always seem to have to backtrack over previous learning, having the kind of brain that forgets things that I don't use daily. Well... I don't like to think about it, but my recent review of various sugars (it can be confusing to me, and I would think many other people as well, exactly what is meant by 'sugars') has distilled some more information for me in a way that I will hopefully not be forgetting ever again.
I am not a chemist, and so any of my explanations on the topic will almost definitely lack technical accuracy. But I hope that I get the main idea right to pass on. Having read through many wikipedia pages involving various chemical... erm, things... as a non-chemist, I learn something new every time but it can be tough going. I probably even learned some of this in high school chemistry, but, like I was just explaining, I can't often keep super specific knowledge that I don't commonly use. There are probably a lot of people like me out there, in this respect.
What people commonly mean* when they say "sugar" is the kind of granulated table sugar that comes in a package. This stuff is sucrose. Sucrose is a molecule that is made up of one glucose molecule and one fructose molecule joined together. Your system easily breaks this bond as it processes the sucrose that you've ingested. So, when we read 'sucrose' or 'table sugar' and commonly just 'sugar,' what it means for our bodies is that it is 50% fructose and 50% glucose we are ingesting.
*note: in other cases, when some people (seemingly often those confusing chemist types) say 'sugar,' they are using it as a wider classification for a number of similar sweet tasting carbohydrates. These could include sucrose, glucose, fructose, lactose, maltose etc. Keep this in mind to avoid confusion.
Next up: glucose. Glucose is stuff that our body needs for energy, and overall our main source of fuel. It occurs naturally in fruit and the types of food that we would call 'carbohydrates'. We have very good systems for breaking it down. So in a normal body system, glucose by itself is alright. Obviously this is different and not so okay for diabetics (research project for me later).
And following: fructose. Fructose is also naturally occurring in fruit and various places, but this is the one that is NOT good for us. Our bodies cannot process the molecule the same way they can process glucose. It ends up getting stored awkwardly and unhealthily, and leading to various health problems, the least of which is some unfortunate weight gain, and eventually resulting in obesity, high blood pressure (hypertension), and heart disease to name a few. Another crazy bad effect of fructose is the reaction that it goes through while the body tries to process it does not produce any of the signals that tells our body to stop eating. So we just eat more and more because instead of knowing to stop, it becomes addicting! The best way to cope is to try to drastically reduce fructose in the diet, which is what I am going to be attempting. Things we can eat to help us deal with fructose are: lots of antioxidants, and lots of fibre. Fructose in many cases comes naturally prepackaged with its own helping of fibre, in the form of these things called fruit. This is why it is okay to eat fruit, even though they contain fructose. This is NOT the case in terms of juice, where most or all of the fibre has been removed.
So, now, let's tackle a weird one: Glucose-fructose (or glucose/fructose). By what it looks like, this should be basically another name for sucrose, referring back to the above explanation, right? Wrong. Glucose-fructose is a pseudo-chemical sounding name (used mainly in Canada, for labeling, as I gather) what is generally known as high-fructose corn syrup, or HFCS.
HFCS (high-fructose corn syrup) is used in more foods than not, it seems these days, as a sweetener. This is because it can be produced more cheaply than sugar, and in the United States, making it so that economically the U.S. is less dependent on trade for sugar cane. It is also sweeter than sugar. It is mostly a blend of fructose and glucose, made from heavily processed corn (read as: evilly processed corn). The percentage of fructose in HFCS can be from around 90% to 40% (people serious about quoting this should check the figures elsewhere, but this gives you the general idea). This stuff generally gets pumped into other highly processed foods that are devoid of antioxidants and lacking in fibre, so it's harder to redeem in my opinion. If they are using HFCS, there's probably other stuff in there that's not good for you either. As well as the high fructose content, there are supposed to be a couple other gross chemically things floating around in it from the heavy processing, as well.
Summing up - Fructose: gross!!!! HFCS: bad!!! Glucose-fructose: damn you HFCS, don't try to hide behind confusing labeling (the whole 'sugar' thing is bad enough). We know what you are... NOT GOOD for us. Don't try to tempt me with that free can of soda.
No comments:
Post a Comment