If you honestly believe, contrary to established scientific opinion, that isolated, refined substances are exactly the same as the natural equivalent of that substance within foods, then I challenge you to do a diet consisting solely of artificial vitamins/minerals and amino-acids, in short processed equivalents of all the nutrients one needs for basic health. I'm sure your health would decline rapidly as a result.
But, really , the whole fructose issue is a red herring as fructose is a vital component of human semen:-
http://www.reproduction-online.org/cgi/content/abstract/5/3/347
http://www.umc.sunysb.edu/urology/male_infertility/SEMEN_ANALYSIS.html
In short, to equate the natural fructose in semen with something as harshly refined as corn-syrup is misleading. If it were that damaging, the body would have used some other more effective substance instead.
AS for the PUFA question, a proper palaeo diet of grassfed meats/wild game etc. has the right omega-3- to omega-6 ratio so that it's a non-issue.
Geoff
> Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2010 12:12:21 -0500
> From: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: My new paleo diet definition page
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
> ----- "Geoffrey Purcell" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > Strictly speaking all elements within food are combined with other elements along with enzymes/bacteria etc. When you isolate one substance from all the rest, you therefore can only get a highly inaccurate idea of what the effect of that food really is. And I would think that something that is almost chemically identical isn't the same as something that really is identical in all respects.
>
> Fructose isn't a whole food; it's a component of some foods. You stated that studies of fructose are essentially meaningless. That's a strong claim. After all, "meaningless" implies that the studies are devoid of significance altogether, and there's nothing at all we can learn from them. What support for this very strong claim did you provide? None. You point out that in whole foods, fructose is present along with other components, a point that no one would deny. Nevertheless, the way in which fructose is metabolized in the body is known in considerable detail, and within the past few years the causal role of fructose in insulin resistance has been worked out. The metabolism of fructose doesn't depend upon which food it's an element of. If you know differently, then by all means present the evidence. Do the bacteria in food alter the metabolism of fructose? Show me. Free fructose isn't broken down, since it's already a monosaccharide. It's absorbed in the gut and taken to the liver, as is. When ingested in the disaccharide sucrose, the sucrase enzyme is secreted in the gut and the sucrose molecule is broken down to glucose and fructose within seconds, and both are then absorbed. In fruits, there are various combinations of free glucose, free fructose, and sucrose. It doesn't matter where the free glucose, free fructose, and sucrose came from.
>
> Now, in actual fruits, there are other components such as pectins and plenty of water, which slow down our consumption of the fruits. That may be relevant to our insulin response to those fruits, but the point is that insulin isn't the only player. Fructose has little or no effect on insulin, which is why diabetics were advised to use fructose sweeteners for years. In low-carb circles we sometimes have tunnel vision in our attention to insulin, to the exclusion of all else. Even though fructose has no direct effect on insulin, its indirect effect is profound. The effect of fructose on the liver is the same as the effect of alcohol, which is to cause the liver to store fat. Moreover, the liver's ability to store fat is unlimited, so that it's possible for the liver to become positively engorged with fat. This fatty liver disease has been known for a long time, but was mainly associated with heavy drinkers. It is believed to eventuate in cirrhosis, although not all who have fatty liver disease get cirrhosis. When the liver becomes engorged with fat, it leads to insulin resistance and other problems. And the fact that it inhibits leptin is also problematic.
>
> > Re PUFAs:- I no longer believe in all the PUFA hysteria. For one thing most of the scares re PUFA centre around the notion that PUFAs are more easily damaged by heat. Therefore, if any danger exists at all(which I doubt), it's only an issue for cooked-dieters not rawpalaeos.
>
> Heat-damaged PUFA is only one aspect. A much more significant consideration is the fact that most PUFA, heated or not, has a blend of fatty acids heavily tilted toward omega-6. This is known to contribute to the production of pro-inflammatory series 2 prostaglandins , and also to fatty liver disease!
>
> Todd Moody
> [log in to unmask]
_________________________________________________________________
We want to hear all your funny, exciting and crazy Hotmail stories. Tell us now
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/195013117/direct/01/
|
