Conference moira::parenting_v3

    Yes, there is a nutritional difference. Processed sugars such as
    cane sugar, and corn syrups have no nutritional value. They are
    just empty calories, and are metabolized very quickly.
    
    Something that is sweetend by fruit or fruit juice only (not fructose
    even) has a much higher nutritional value. You will get the vitamin
    c for example from certain fruit juices. They are also metabolized
    much slower, and therefore your body has more time to absorb the
    nutrients. 
    
    This is why alot of kids go bonkers after having refined sugars.
    The blood glucose level shoots up because refined sugars are
    metabolized so quickly.
    
    Take it from me, a person who has had alot of problems with sugar
    (from hypoglycemia, to gestational diabetes, to PMS). I call it 
    "the white death". 
    
    If you or anyone else is interested I can post some recipes I use
    that contain only fruits or fruit juice as sweeteners. You can also
    look in Hydra::holistic for more info on sugar.
    
    You may also want to ask your doctor about this. Sometimes they
    say kids need a certain amount of sugars and fats. But I can't see
    a doctor telling you sugar is better than fruit.
    
    I'm off my soap box now.
    
    Dot      

    re: .1
    
    	You are right on about there being a big difference.  My son (9mo)
    was diagnosed with insulin dependent diabetes when he was 5 months old. 
    The doctors told us that everyone needs some amount of sugar but that 
    the processed sugars should be avoided.  Shayne eats lots of fruit and 
    is doing fine with that, on the rare occasions that he gets processed, 
    like ice cream, he does bounce off the walls.  
    	I would be VERY interested in your recipes, I would like to start 
    trying them out so we get used to eating right and can be good examples
    to Shayne. 
    
    Thanks, 
    Malinda

re .1:

Most foods that are labeled "sweetened with fruit juice" are sweetened with
apple juice, pear juice, etc.  These have very little nutritional value,
and certainly no vitamin C.

Sucrose (white sugar) gets broken down in the stomach into fructose and
glucose, which are the major sugars in fruit.  The stuff that's usually used
to sweeten soft drinks is "high-fructose corn syrup."  I believe it also
consists of fructose (of course) and glucose.

    SET FLAME ON  (Melt the sugar!)
    
    A lot of people, Doctors included, who ought to know better give the
    advice that some sugars are better than others when telling people
    to watch their sugar consumption in diets.  It seems to be a way of
    getting people off pure junk food.  BUT IT IS WRONG ... the motives
    are good, but what they quote as fact is incorrect and they are
    doing people a great injustice.
    
    SET FLAME COOLER
    
    In terms of SUGARS themselves, there is no nutritional difference
    between Sucrose, Fructose, Glucose, Lactose (if you can metbolise it)
    when you compare the equivalent amount of sweetener.
    
    However, there is a difference in the sweetening power (to the taste)
    of these various sugars ... Glucose does not taste very sweet ...
    Lactose definitely does not taste very sweet.
    
    There is also *No nutritional diference* between white sugar, brown
    sugar, mollases and honey for a given sweetness.  Some say that the
    trace elements must make one better than the other ... potentially
    true, but the trace elements obtained from any of these is FAR below
    the recommended daily intake for the amount of sugar we consume.
    To obtain sufficient minerals to actually begin to make a difference, 
    we would have to consume about 2-3 lb of mollasses, 4 lbs of honey,
    dark brown sugar, or corn syrup or 5 lb of light brown sugar.
    
    There are a million and one studies that prove these facts.
    
    Now, in terms of the difference between drinks and juices, and pop come
    to that ....
    
    ALL CONTAIN APPROXIMATELY 6-9 TEASPOONS OF SUGAR (5ml spoons) (Sucrose
    equivalent ... that is all the different kinds are expressed as the
    equivalent amount of sucrose)
    
    GRAPE and PRUNE juice infact contains the most.
    
    There is within 1/2 spoon difference between unsweetened and sweetened
    orange juice (several brands)
    
    A typical can of a typical cola contains 7 spoonsful of sugar
    
    The difference between all these things is really not the difference
    in the sugar, but in the nutritional value of other things in the
    juice / drink --- like amount of pulp, amount of Vitamin C or D,
    amount of minerals.  The drinks are very lacking in these things,
    but in terms of sugar there's very little in it.
    
    SET FLAME OFF
    
    So what this boils down to is a) avoid any sugar in excess ... b) if
    you must consume something sweet, make sure it has some other redeeming
    quality ... like vitamins and minerals.
    
    Stuart

    Re different sugars. Surely different sugars have different Calorific
    values for an equal weight of sugar ?
    
    As we in th Western world are overweight, over fed and have bad teeth
    surely we should be looking to remove excessive sugar from our diets ? 
                                          
    Are are we all hypnotised by the half truths peddled by the food
    processing industry and its advertising agents ?
    
    DejW

>    Re different sugars. Surely different sugars have different Calorific
>    values for an equal weight of sugar ?
    
    True enough ... but in making comparisons, the various sugars (fructose
    etc) are converted to their caloric equivalents.  So for example
    when two cups of juices with more different amounts of glucose and
    fructose are compared, they are converted to their *body* caloric
    equivalent ... given that the body abosrbs and metabolises some sugars  
    more readily and completely than others.  So that way the comparisons
    are being done fairly.
    
>    As we in th Western world are overweight, over fed and have bad teeth
>    surely we should be looking to remove excessive sugar from our diets ? 

    Yes but the operative word is excessive ... Cheap calories are easy to
    obtain from fats too and we consume far too much fat so really the
    operative phrase is *Everything in moderation*.  As for teeth, sugar
    is not the only culprit here ... and the effects of excess sugar can
    be compensated for by adequate dental hygiene.
                                              
>    Are are we all hypnotised by the half truths peddled by the food
>    processing industry and its advertising agents ?
    
    Certainly few people deny that sugar in excess is not good for you,
    but it appears that it is not the culprit that we have painted it to
    be and lead on by the artificial sweetener and fashion industries!
    I cannot remember the exact amount any more, but a recent advertisement
    pointed out that a spoonful of sugar has surprisingly few calories.
    
    The real culprits leading us to excess sugar consumption are the places
    sugar hides without you realizing it ... peanut butter ... some breads
    ... cakes and cookies that could easaily contain far less sugar and
    yet still be enjoyable ... (in fact some would become enjoyable!)  sweet
    cured meats ... cereals ... yoghourts  (I laugh when I see "light
    yoghourt" ... sweetened with honey!) ... the list goes on and on.
    
    It's this casual consumption of sugar that is the real culprit in the
    excess sugar war.  And it's the excess amount of fat and food we eat
    along with lack of exercise, that is the real culprit in our weight
    and fitness war.
    
    Stuart

    
    I, for one, believe that sugar is sugar, no matter what form it
    comes in. The surest way to improve our diet is to change our
    eating habits and slowly wean ourselves of excess sugar, salt and fat.
    
    I do try to buy food that is least processed, but I will not
    go out of my way to replace white sugar with, say, honey or
    fruit juice sweetener. I would rather use less sugar and train
    my taste buds to enjoy less sweet food. This goes the same with salt
    and oil. I cannot depend on the fruit sweetener to fulfil my vitamins
    requirement. I think, junk food (like cookies) is junk food, we
    shouldn't be eating a lot of it, so it shouldn't matter what
    kind of sugar it is made of!!!!
    
    For examples, we buy pure fruit juices, but we always dilute the juice
    with an equal amount of water, because it is too sweet. We buy apple
    sauce with no sugar added. We make our own popsicles with fresh fruits.
    Ww do that mainly because real juice and real juice taste a lot better.
    We try to get more whoel grain products. I cut back on the salt and 
    sugar called for in recipes. But, we still buy cookies made with sugar, 
    salt and fat, we just don't eat a whole lot of them. Would I spend
    twice as much on cookies just becuase they are fruit juice sweetened?
    No, because I think I shouldn't really be buying cookies anyways and
    getting these special cookies gives me a false sense of security!!!!
    
    
    
    Eva.

    For starters, the body does not make fructose it makes glucose of all
    sugars processed or not.  In order to make glucose of processed sucrose
    the body must have an insulin reaction causing the pancreas to work
    harder.  Foods that are sweetened with fructose (fruit juices) are 
    much better for you and do not cause an insulin reaction.
    By the way you can buy fructose in powered form but it is not as
    sweet as sucrose and you must use more.
    
    As stated in a previous note moderation is the key when it comes to
    processed sucrose.
                          Cathy
    
    

re .8:

If you add a small amount of hydrochloric acid to sucrose, it's broken down
into glucose and fructose.  Hydrochloric acid is found in stomach juices.

    Thanks Gerald,  I only did a little chemistry, so I couldn't remember
    the breakdown.   As I understood it, the pancreas secretes insulin at a
    pretty constant rate, except when asleep, which is why, when eating
    high sugar foods, we feel a rush.  It doesn't go producing more insulin
    because we just swallowed a mouthful of sugar!  And moreover, the body
    sure doesn't know the difference between swallowing sucrose and the
    equivalent amounts of glucose and fructose!
    
    This is precisely why we can make sugar equivalences.
    
    This is another of the myths perpetrated by sugar's fearmongerers.
    The next thing you know they'll tell us it causes cancer and try to
    take it from the market.
    
    So, I reiterate ... apart from a bit of vitamin C and some trace
    minerals, there is no advantage getting your 6 teaspoonsful of
    sugar from a cup of juice or a cup of pop!
    
    Stuart

    re..8
    
    From the Goldbeck's Guide to Good Food,
    
    "Any connection between commercial fructose and natural fruit sugars,
    however, is in name only, for while fructose may be found in fruit, the
    product you buy in the store is not FROM fruit. Powdered fructose is
    often extracted from refined cane or beet sugar: fructose and glucose.
    This mkaes fructose more processed than regular white sugar."
    "Animal studies have implicated fructose in elvated blood triglyceride
    and cholestrol levels and, like common cane and beet sugars, fructose
    promotes cavites. Despite all of this, many "health" and "natural"
    products promote their use of fructose."
    
    Yes, to fruit juices, but not sure, to fructose. 

    SET FLAME ON THERMONUCLEAR EXPLOSION
    
    OH COME OFF IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  WHAT NONSENSE PEOPLE GET AWAY
    WITH WRITING AND GET TO CHARGE FOR IT!
    
    TURN FLAME DOWN TO SIMMER
    
    Fructose is a chemical formulation of Carbon and Hydrogen atoms
    that is produced in fruits.   It is possible to produce that
    same chemical formulation of carbon and hydrogen synthetically
    by reducing sucrose to fructose and glucose and if you were to look 
    at a molecule of synthetically produced fructose and a molecule of
    naturally produced fructose, YOU COULD NOT TELL ANY DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER!!
    
>    This mkaes fructose more processed than regular white sugar."
    
    OK, how is fructose produced in fruit if it is not "processed".
    
>    "Animal studies have implicated fructose in elvated blood triglyceride
>    and cholestrol levels and, like common cane and beet sugars, fructose
>    promotes cavites. Despite all of this, many "health" and "natural"
>    products promote their use of fructose."
    
    The fact that the author has written in such a style to implicate in
    the same sentence fructose for both elevated triglyceride and
    cholesterol levels, and promotion of cavities, leaves this whole
    work very suspect IMHO.  It's almost like saying "if a bus hits you, it
    could kill you, or bend your little finger"
    
    SET FLAME OFF
    
    Stuart

    
    re. 12
    
    Wait a minute, I do think books like this have some merits. So far,
    someone mentioned that fructose is better than white sugar because
    it comes from fruit. Well, the book just explained that powdered
    fructose may not come from fruit and that it is a highly processed
    sugar and that it is just another sugar.
    
    Not everyone has a chemistry degree, there are a lot of hype material
    out there. So, what/who are we supposed to trust? I don't think the
    book is nonsense, it is pro-organic and can be a bit radical. If
    you have a chance, take a look at the book, it is also printed in
    Canada.
      
    
    	Eva.

    Sorry to show my frustration with a subject like this so overtly
    but it just galls me when I hear such nonsense as was quoted from
    that book.  I do not have a chemistry degree ... in fact I have
    studied very little chemistry, but I do know that there is no
    difference between a chemical produced synthetically and one
    produced naturally.  Logic of atomic and molecular structure tells
    me this.
    
>    someone mentioned that fructose is better than white sugar because
>    it comes from fruit. Well, the book just explained that powdered
>    fructose may not come from fruit and that it is a highly processed
>    sugar and that it is just another sugar.
    
    White sugar is only refined brown sugar ... refined to remove the
    mollases that gives brown sugar its colour.  (Some brown sugars
    are actually white sugar reconstituted with molasses).
    
    White sugar (sucrose) as has been explained twice now in this note
    can be reduced to sucrose and fructose in hydrochloric acid (which
    is a major constituent of our gastric juices).  Therefore any sucrose
    we ingest becomes glucose and fructose.
    
    Fructose and glucose are manufactured in just the same mechanism and then
    crystallized by removing the water.  Powdered fructose is therefore no
    diffrent from what your own body does with sucrose.
    
    Fructose that comes from fruit is the identical chemical compound to
    the powdered fructose.  Examined under an electron microscope you
    could not see ANY difference in structure.  They are digested by the
    body identically ... in short they are the same thing!  SO there is
    no way in which one can be better for you than the other.
    
    >Not everyone has a chemistry degree, there are a lot of hype material
>    out there. So, what/who are we supposed to trust? I don't think the
>    book is nonsense, it is pro-organic and can be a bit radical. If
>    you have a chance, take a look at the book, it is also printed in
>    Canada.
      
Believe me, I know there is a lot of hype out there, and this is just one
    of them.  If you read medical notes conference, you will have seen
    other examples of where people IMHO are being taken advantage of by
    hype by professing that a natural source chemical is better than a
    manufactured .... like Vitamin C for example.  Vitamin C is ascorbic
    acid ... There is no chemically known way to distinguish natural
    source ascorbic acid from manufactured.  Another favourite is that
    a "natural cure" is better than a drug.  I won't delve into that here,
    but suffice it to say that natural doesn't always mean good for you!  
    
    Any reference material that suggests that there is a difference is
    suspect.  These half truths are dangerous ... people can die from them
    ... like the kiddie who died because the parents went to a herbalist to
    treat their seriously ill daughter instead of a doctor.  Now I'm not
    saying that this book is as bad as this, but it is part of this
    dangerous school of thought.
    
    Stuart

    	Stuart --
    
    	I think you are missing a very important point by focusing
    	SOLELY on the molecular structure when comparing "fruit sweetened"
    	to "refined-sugar sweetened", or ascorbic acid to "natural"
    	vitamin C.
    
    	Yes, chemically, sugar is sugar.  Ascorbic acid is ascorbic acid
    	regardless of the source.  But when the item is produced in a
    	refined state, it is devoid of all the other "molecular items" 
    	found naturally-occurring with that item in nature.  You are
    	missing out on the naturally occurring enzymes, or vitamins, or
    	minerals, or whatever -- the "intrinsic value" of the environment
    	in which it is found.  Science cannot chemically reproduce nature 
    	in all things.  Yes, we can reproduce any specific molecular
    	structure (and even some that do not naturally occur -- nutrasweet)
    	but we can often fail to realize the importance others that are
    	found with, and work in conjunction with that item in nature.
    
    	To keep the topic to the original subject, yes, in their pure form,
    	sucrose, fructose, lactoes, and any other -ose will break down to
    	glucose in your body.  But to say that pure fruit juice is the
    	nutritional equivalent of fruit-flavored sugar-water is absolutely
    	false.  Therefore, something sweetened with fruit juice will be
    	nutritionally superior to something flavored with pure sugar.
    	And I believe that was the thrust of the original question.
    
    	Joe Oppelt

    Oh indeed, and if you read my original response to this, you will
    see that I acknowledged that you will find some vitamins, some
    pulp, some minerals in fruit juice as compared with fruit drinks.
    
    The point I wanted to get across was that it is not the sweetener
    that should be the criterion for chosing a product, but rather the
    other nutritional aspects ... like Fruit juice contains vitamins,
    some minerals, some trace dietary fibre (from pulp) compared with
    a popular crystal flavoured beverage that contains artificial
    flavour, and colorant.  Of course the "sweetness" is also a
    criterion.
    
    The thing that you do have going for you with the crystal beverage is 
    that with some brands, you control the amount of sweetener that you 
    can't do with juice.
    
    But, in comparing for example, ascorbic acid to natural source vitamin
    C, the important point to remember is that the trace elements must
    still be refined out ...   Like the differences in the sweeteners,
    the amounts of the trace elements found in these natural source
    products is significantly lower than recommended daily intakes, so
    much so that they are really negligible.
    
    So, I still stand by my position.

Aw gee, I just wish they'd quit putting the number of calories on
candy bar wrappers.

    RE. 11
         The fructose I buy is indeed from fruit. The brand name is ESTEE.
    it is made for diabetics.
    
    RE. 15
         Thank you.
                                 Cathy
    

    Nits:
    
    1.	You can't see molecular structure with an electron microscope,
    	unless you are talking about the edge-of-what-can-be-done work
    	with scanning tunneling electron microscopes, where people have
    	been able to say "that bump is the xenon atom" or "that bump
    	is a carbon in the benzene ring".  I doubt anyone can visualize
    	all the atoms in a sugar molecule today.  Were you thinking of
    	X-ray crystalography?
    
    2.	There is one huge difference between fully synthetic and natural
    	chemicals--natural products are typically all one stereo isomer.
    	That is, if a chemical exists in two forms, one the mirror image
    	of the other, the synthetic product will be a half-and-half
    	mixture, but the natural product will almost always be either
    	all "left-hand" or all "right-hand".
    
    	Since any commercially-viable product is probably only a few steps
    	away from a natural source (like sugar beets), thus having an
    	initial input of "handedness" which leads to a handed output,
    	this is not a practical factor in the current argument or in most
    	arguments about natural vs. processed foods.  It was used by
    	Dorothy Sayers in one of her murder mysteries.
    
    			-John Bishop

    Thank you .15...
    
    It is still true that refined sugars are metabolized much quicker
    than unrefined sugars. I assume this means your body does not have
    time to absorb the nutrients in it.
    
    I still refuse to belive that a cake or cookie that is sweetened
    with fruit juice is the same as a cookie sweetened with regular
    old white sugar (or molasses, or honey or brown sugar.....all are
    empty calories).
    
    And in the case of a diabetic or a hypoglycemic, eating something
    with such a concentration of sugar can be dangerous. As can eating
    too much fruit...even too much sugar from eating alot of fruit can
    be dangerous to a diabetic (I was limited to a certain amount a day
    when I had gestational diabetes). 
    
    A glass of apple juice must have more nutritional value than a glass
    of apple flavored drink sweetened with sugar. After I cut all refined
    sugars out of my diet, and used only fruit juice as a sweetener
    (not fructose) I felt 100% better, and I dropped 5lbs in 2 weeks).
    
    Try it sometime and see how you feel.
    
    Dot

    answer
    
    two nits...
    
    1. Fructose is not digested by hydrocholoric acid in the stomach,
    it is digested by fructase an enzyme that is specific for that
    molecule (as sucrose is digested by sucrase, lactose by lactase etc.)
    Some of this digestion begins in the mouth where the enzymes are
    secreted in saliva, but most of it takes place in the small intestine.
    
    Other than that the information on the identity of 'natural' vs
    'refined' sugars is correct. The amount of trace enzymes and vitamins
    in 'natural sugars' is really too small to make a difference.
    
    2. Refinded and unrefined sugars are metabolized at the same rate.
    Longer chain carbohydrates (starches) are metabolized more slowly
    than short chain carbohydrates but both are metabolized in more than
    adequate time for the resultant glucose molecules to be absorbed
    in the small intestine.
    
    Bonnie
    
    and a p.s. sterio isomers, i.e. mirror images of food molecules are
    perfectly worthless in our diet, we can't digest them.

    .21 > and a p.s. sterio isomers, i.e. mirror images of food molecules are
    .21 > perfectly worthless in our diet, we can't digest them.
    
    Indeed, I have more than once read about people who hoped to make a
    killing with start-up firms that would manufacture backwards sugar. 
    They hoped it would TASTE (and cook) just like sugar, but never be
    digested - a perfect diet food ingredient.  If oral bacteria couldn't
    digest it, either, it would even be endorsed by the A.D.A. as
    "anti-cavity."  But somehow it has never worked yet.  Anyone else want
    to try?
    
    		- Bruce

    There is an undigestable sugar the name of which escapes me
    that is used in some kinds of candys. One problem is that
    they cause loose bowels (I'd say diahre what ever but I can't
    find it in the dictionary and I don't remember how to spell it! :-) )
    
    I don't know if a sterio isomer sugar would cause the same problem.
    
    Bonnie

    
    re. 23
    
    Bonnie, I think you're referring to sorbitol. They use that
    in so called sugar-free candies. They don't promote tooth decay, but
    they are not calorie free.
    
    
    Eva.
    

    >I still refuse to belive that a cake or cookie that is sweetened
    >with fruit juice is the same as a cookie sweetened with regular
    >old white sugar (or molasses, or honey or brown sugar.....all are
    >empty calories).
    
    True, it is likely that there are other traces of other nutrients
    but they are only traces and whether that is better is moot.
    
>    A glass of apple juice must have more nutritional value than a glass
>    of apple flavored drink sweetened with sugar. After I cut all refined
>    sugars out of my diet, and used only fruit juice as a sweetener
>    (not fructose) I felt 100% better, and I dropped 5lbs in 2 weeks).
    
    Of course it is, but not from the perspective of the sweetener,
    providing we are comparing the equivalent amount of sugars.
    
    There is another effect at play here too you know ... you will have
    been paying far closer attention to your general diet ... you will have
    cut down the total amount of sweetener used ... that's far more likely
    to have affected your weight and well being than just changing sugar
    ... you will have actually consumed less sugar.  If you'd cut down on
    the amount of white sugar you consumed, you'd have probably experienced
    the same weight loss.
    
    Stuart
    

    in re .24
    
    Thanks Eva, it is sorbitol that I am thinking of. As I remember
    it is very slowly digested, so it doesn't release glucose in
    the mouth.
    
    Bonnie