CPAPtalk.com

cathyf wrote:One surefire sign that you are talking to someone who is MSA (making stuff up) is if they tell you that you should eat sugar rather than high-fructose corn syrup because fructose is bad for you.

(Some chemistry: sugar (sucrose) is one glucose molecule and one fructose molecule which link together by losing two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom -- which bind together to form a water molecule. When an animal consumes sucrose, the enzyme sucrase comes in with water and breaks apart all of the glucose-fructose bonds as part of digestion, and then the animal has glucose and fructose in their gut for further digestion. Sucrose is exactly 50% fructose. Corn syrup -- the stuff that you buy in the baking aisle -- is 100% glucose, so it doesn't taste sweet. When they say that HFCS is "high" in fructose, that is only in comparison to regular corn syrup which doesn't have ANY fructose in it at all. HFCS is the result of a complicated chemical process where some percentage of the glucose in the corn syrup is chemically converted to fructose, but it is NOT chemically bound to the glucose -- it doesn't combine to make sucrose -- but the two are merely mixed up in the syrup. HFCS comes with the fructose at 2 levels -- 55% fructose (HFCS55) is used in soft drinks, while the 42% fructose (HFCS42) is used most everywhere else. So sugar has MORE fructose in it than HFCS42! Now HFCS may indeed be bad for you, but if it is the fructose that's the problem then sugar would be just as bad, and eating fruit would be worse. Anyone who thinks that the apple is the unhealthy part of a caramel apple is an idiot. They are obviously focusing on the one word that they didn't understand and just making up a story around it.)

Yes and no. Everything you say is correct but then it comes to your body and how accessible to the body the fructose is to your digestive system.
And the apple - well it does have a lot of stuff in it besides fructose and anyone who thinks the caramel stuff is healthier needs their head examined.

Personally I use some sugar but I don't drink softdrinks and avoid processed foods as much as possible. The problem with HFCS is that is it put into much processed foods and hidden in the ingredients lists. My potato salad, spaghetti sauce, or my chicken strips do not need added sugar in any shape or form but you will find HFCS in the lists of ingredients.

chunkyfrog wrote:So are you contending that doctors are always right?

I contend that doctors are more frequently correct than patient that attempt self-diagnosis.

49er wrote:

Paralel wrote:

chunkyfrog wrote:...To compound the problem, self-diagnosis is cheaper and less invasive than the medically sanctioned methods;
and is quite often accurate...

I completely disagree with this. Self-diagnosis is often inaccurate. There is a reason diagnostic tests exist. The average person is not particularly good at determining cause and effect, as well as differentiating actual physical syndromes from psychiatric manifestations.

Parelel,

I am surprised at your post because didn't you experience having a serious medical condition be misdiagnosed as psychiatric in nature? Or am I misremembering?

Yes, I was severely injured as a result of frank medical malpractice, despite my assertion of what I believed the actual diagnosis was, and I was correct. However, my situation is unusual as I have an MD, but am not actively practicing medicine in a practice setting, I'm actually a patient advocate (I help people with complex diagnoses get to the right specialists that can help them get the answers they need), as such I rely on my medical education with regard to self-diagnosis. Malpractice is more common than most people are aware, I think most people, even the skeptics, would be surprised at how much is done to bury mistakes that are made which alter the medical outcome for a patient. My case, and many individuals I have worked with really make me question what some physicians are thinking (or not thinking, as the case may be). Despite this, and being injured by a doctor who was a bad apple, it doesn't change my position that typically a physician is better able to diagnose something than the average person can using self-diagnosis.

Hi Paralel,

Thank you for your response and yes, I do agree that usually a physician is able to better diagnose something than a patient is. However, there do seem to be cases as you tragically found out and in many cases of gluten intolerance where that is not the case. Hopefully, they don't lead to endless suffering like what happened with you.

49er

Paralel wrote:

49er wrote:

Paralel wrote:

chunkyfrog wrote:...To compound the problem, self-diagnosis is cheaper and less invasive than the medically sanctioned methods;
and is quite often accurate...

I completely disagree with this. Self-diagnosis is often inaccurate. There is a reason diagnostic tests exist. The average person is not particularly good at determining cause and effect, as well as differentiating actual physical syndromes from psychiatric manifestations.

Parelel,

I am surprised at your post because didn't you experience having a serious medical condition be misdiagnosed as psychiatric in nature? Or am I misremembering?

Yes, I was severely injured as a result of frank medical malpractice, despite my assertion of what I believed the actual diagnosis was, and I was correct. However, my situation is unusual as I have an MD, but am not actively practicing medicine in a practice setting, I'm actually a patient advocate (I help people with complex diagnoses get to the right specialists that can help them get the answers they need), as such I rely on my medical education with regard to self-diagnosis. Malpractice is more common than most people are aware, I think most people, even the skeptics, would be surprised at how much is done to bury mistakes that are made which alter the medical outcome for a patient. My case, and many individuals I have worked with really make me question what some physicians are thinking (or not thinking, as the case may be). Despite this, and being injured by a doctor who was a bad apple, it doesn't change my position that typically a physician is better able to diagnose something than the average person can using self-diagnosis.

Wow! What a thread.

Lighten up and watch something funny. All of you.

I think this is hilarious. Maybe especially so because I grew up next door.


“You’re acting like someone put gluten in your muffin.”
http://www.salon.com/2015/01/18/snl_bri ... ur_muffin/

BlackSpinner wrote:Yes and no. Everything you say is correct but then it comes to your body and how accessible to the body the fructose is to your digestive system.
And the apple - well it does have a lot of stuff in it besides fructose and anyone who thinks the caramel stuff is healthier needs their head examined.

Personally I use some sugar but I don't drink softdrinks and avoid processed foods as much as possible. The problem with HFCS is that is it put into much processed foods and hidden in the ingredients lists. My potato salad, spaghetti sauce, or my chicken strips do not need added sugar in any shape or form but you will find HFCS in the lists of ingredients.

Right -- there are a lot of suspicions about HFCS, and there are plausible mechanisms that could explain harm. The chemical processing that gets the fructose into the syrup leaves some various and sundry other molecules behind, which we believe are harmless, but maybe there is some harm that we haven't figured out yet. My point is using this as an indicator if you are evaluating someone who is claiming to be an expert. If they say gluten AND fructose are bad for you, well, you know that the fructose part is nonsense, and you should probably ignore their opinions on gluten, too. If they say that there is some evidence that some not-well-understood component of HFCS is associated with particular health problems, then that's NOT nonsense, and you can't just dismiss the person as an idiot.

There's a joke about staying at a Holiday Inn Express in here...

Fructose is general is nothing to be concerned about, unless you have fructose sensitivity/intolerance, yes, its a real medical diagnosis, and has symptoms not terribly dissimilar from a mix of Celia disease and lactose intolerance. However, it is quite unusual, 1 in (if I remember correctly) several hundred thousand people in the US population. But, even for people who do not have fructose sensitivity/intolerance, there is a wide variety of levels of activity for the enzymes that are responsible for breaking down fructose in the liver. If someone has several low functioning mutations of those enzymes it is actually possible for fructose to build up, and enough of a build up can be fatal. Again, we're talking about an extremely rare situation, but it is a fact that the body is not capable of handling unlimited amount of fructose.

Fructose was actually part of a very sad and stupid chapter in human medical history. Back in the early to mid 20th century it was though that instead of using a glucose drip for patients they could use a fructose drip instead, with the benefit of no worries about blood glucose spikes. This theory, which appears to be sound at first glance, killed several hundred people before it was realized that the fructose drips were responsible for killing them. What happened is that even though these people all had normal functioning livers and fructose metabolic pathways they just couldn't handle the level of fructose being dumped into their system, and as a result it built up in their bloodstream and they died from what was essentially an acute overdose of fructose. Once the cause was identified glucose drips were reinstated and fructose drips, except in extremely specific and closely watched circumstances, were banned for general use in hospitals.

So, while fructose in even significant quantities is likely safe for the average person, there is some reason to be suspect of fructose, especially for certain populations.

Sure there are metabolic diseases, and certain individuals have varying sensitivities to stuff, but I'm back at Mexican Coke (made with sugar, i.e. sucrose) vs American Coke (made with HFCS). They both have a boatload of fructose in them. Any differences in the body's reaction to them are caused by something other than a lack or presence of fructose, because that isn't a material difference. And anyone who drinks Mexican Coke while avoiding both American Coke AND fruit is not doing themselves any favors.

Maybe it would be a good idea to avoid sugary pop altogether?

cathyf wrote:Sure there are metabolic diseases, and certain individuals have varying sensitivities to stuff, but I'm back at Mexican Coke (made with sugar, i.e. sucrose) vs American Coke (made with HFCS).

speaking as someone in the mexican coke zone....

people buy mexican coke because it *TASTES BETTER* than the hfcs stuff.

Julie wrote:Maybe it would be a good idea to avoid sugary pop altogether?

Yup.

palerider wrote:people buy mexican coke because it *TASTES BETTER* than the hfcs stuff.

Sorry, I have seen the blind taste tests - people can't tell the difference but swear they can.

ChicagoGranny wrote:

palerider wrote:people buy mexican coke because it *TASTES BETTER* than the hfcs stuff.

Sorry, I have seen the blind taste tests - people can't tell the difference but swear they can.

yeah, well, I mainly drink diet RC that I mix and carbonate myself out of the 2.5 gallon box I get from the distributor. so... *shrugs* I'm just reporting what I hear

Some people have more sensitive taste buds. My DH and I could ALWAYS pick the Coke in the blind taste tests.
--even while he was still smoking!

I think there's adequate reason to think that the biological effects of HFCS may be different from sucrose. I think it's not at all clear whether HFCS or sucrose is better overall.

Julie wrote:Maybe it would be a good idea to avoid sugary pop altogether?

Stay home and eat your roots and twigs if you want. For those who do drink sweetened beverages, HFCS vs. sucrose vs. artificial sweetener is a legitimate concern.