Researcher finds surprising link between sugar in drinks and blood pressure

The sweetener in many non-diet soft drinks, sports drinks, 'vitamin' water, and even chocolate milk is high fructose corn syrup (HFCS). Many other foods also contain large quantities of HFCS. Check the labels on your salad dressing, bread, yogurt, and soup.

This is not sucrose (sugar), but fructose and glucose.

This make me chuckle. George Oshawa has reached similar conclusions re western diet of high refined starch and sugar when he proposed his original Macrobiotics...In fact, not meaning to offend you westerners, but the truth is your traditional diet is an glorious receipt for furthering the payments of doctors' and morticians' luxury home, yatchts and Ferraris.

This is not sucrose (sugar), but fructose and glucose.

Sucrose is a molecule of glucose bonded to a molecule of fructose.

T...In fact, not meaning to offend you westerners, but the truth is your traditional diet is an glorious receipt for furthering the payments of doctors' and morticians' luxury home, yatchts and Ferraris.

Just what is the traditional western diet?

Just what is the traditional western diet?

About 5 times the asian diet, simply because we have better land and greater husbandry skills as well as an ability to not overpopulate and starve to death on average.

About 5 times the asian diet, simply because we have better land and greater husbandry skills as well as an ability to not overpopulate and starve to death on average.

That must be why the throngs of poor people in India and Bangladesh are so well fed.

This is not sucrose (sugar), but fructose and glucose.

Sucrose is a molecule of glucose bonded to a molecule of fructose.

corn syrop has fructose and glucose but in diferent proportion(not 1:1), and there is more fructose in it, and some scientist think thatmake the difference compared to sugar, because fructose is metabolised more to fats in the liver, but I think that they are equally bad taken in big doses, and still they are beter compared to artificial sweeteners.

It is a well known that the British war-time diet 1940-45 lead to the healthiest Britons ever. To the point that the current generations may well not live as long even with advances in medicine.

The diet was restricted by rationing. Overeating cannot be beneficial. Unfortunately as animals humans are hardwired to eat when they can and if Humans are not educated or restricted then they tend to eat badly. Badly in the sense of food that provides instant gratification but not necessarily anything the body needs.

It is criminal what the pursuit of profit leads to in food adulteration and the manipulation of the average humans basic instincts. I speak as an ex-food taster for a commercial ingredient maker.

The diet was restricted by rationing.

Now that governments control health care, food rationing is the next logical step for our own good.

I can not accept these results. The measurement of BP is not a simple issue! Take a person's BP,..then repeat it..it will probably differ by 10 TIMES the reported effect! A 1.8 mm BP change is meaningless. Even if it were measured by 'arterial line' transducer .. The fluctuations in BP that are normally found are vastly wider than this alleged 'effect'. And therefore, 810 patients (where we might assume that 400 were controls) is indefensibly inadequate to substantiate such a miniscule 'benefit'.

tkjtkj@gmail.com
Anesthesiologist,Ret.

I can not accept these results. The measurement of BP is not a simple issue! Take a person's BP,..then repeat it..it will probably differ by 10 TIMES the reported effect!

My hero.

corn syrop has fructose and glucose but in diferent proportion(not 1:1), and there is more fructose in it, and some scientist think thatmake the difference compared to sugar,

And I didn't comment on any of that. I was speaking to Mr. Pseudoscience's comment that this was about fructose and glucose, not sucrose.

Marjon, government never does anything for our own good. Oh yeah,, and there is also that thing called liberty....

SkepticHeretic,

Mr. Pseudoscience?

Despite your insult, HFCS is still not sugar.

SkepticHeretic,

Mr. Pseudoscience?

Despite your insult, HFCS is still not sugar.

Never said it was, and if you think someone correcting you on an academic point is an insult, you must really feel abused in life, seeing as your commentary here is often inaccurate. You've earned the title of Mr. Pseudoscience due to your stance on other topics, which we've discussed elsewhere. I'd rather not sully this thread with the same debate we're having elsewhere.

"The term sugar is the generic term for any disachharides (e.g. sucrose) and monosaccharides (e.g. fructose, glucose). Sugars are essential structural component of living cells and source of energy in many organisms. Sugars are classified based on the number of monosaccharide units present. The monosaccharides join to form more complex sugars, e.g. disachharides (e.g. sucrose).

"http://www.biolog...ry/Sugar

If HFCS is not sugar, what is it?

yea I am a little dissapointed, I am waiting here for a battle - is fructose that bad- some doctors say, and all I see is a linguisting arguing about- define shugar....

If HFCS is not sugar, what is it?

HFCS is A sugar, but it is not "Table Sugar" as JC said above.

In this "debate" I will side with the scientists at Princeton University as opposed to the posters here trying to build an argument on semantics.

The scientists at Princeton University clearly make a distinction between HFCS and Table Sugar.

http://www.prince...1/22K07/

In this "debate" I will side with the scientists at Princeton University as opposed to the posters here trying to build an argument on semantics.

The fact you downrank when someone agrees with you shows that you're incapable of actually determining fact as your bias against the writer comes in to play more than the content of the post.

This make me chuckle. George Oshawa has reached similar conclusions re western diet of high refined starch and sugar when he proposed his original Macrobiotics...In fact, not meaning to offend you westerners, but the truth is your traditional diet is an glorious receipt for furthering the payments of doctors' and morticians' luxury home, yatchts and Ferraris.

Which is, of course, why the actuary tables continue their unabated increase.

What matters who eats what as long as they are informed of their choices? Anything else is tyranny.

"n 1863 William Banting, an obese English undertaker and coffin maker, published "Letter on Corpulence Addressed to the Public" in which he described a diet for weight control giving up bread, butter, milk, sugar, beer and potatoes.[15] "
http://en.wikiped...ginnings
The idea that sugar was not really good for you has been around for quite a while.

In this "debate" I will side with the scientists at Princeton University as opposed to the posters here trying to build an argument on semantics.

The scientists at Princeton University clearly make a distinction between HFCS and Table Sugar.

http://www.prince...1/22K07/

"First, sucrose is composed of equal amounts of the two simple sugars -- it is 50 percent fructose and 50 percent glucose -- but the typical high-fructose corn syrup used in this study features a slightly imbalanced ratio, containing 55 percent fructose and 42 percent glucose. "

The fact you downrank when someone agrees with you shows that you're incapable of actually determining fact as your bias against the writer comes in to play more than the content of the post.

LOL! If it makes you happy I'll give your post any rank you want from 1 to 5 inclusive.

The fact you downrank when someone agrees with you shows that you're incapable of actually determining fact as your bias against the writer comes in to play more than the content of the post.

LOL! If it makes you happy I'll give your post any rank you want from 1 to 5 inclusive.

It is amusing how so many here pay attention to the ratings. Much has been said about grade inflation to promote self-esteem. Is they why they need the stars?

The fact you downrank when someone agrees with you shows that you're incapable of actually determining fact as your bias against the writer comes in to play more than the content of the post.

LOL! If it makes you happy I'll give your post any rank you want from 1 to 5 inclusive.

I care not what you rank my commentary, I simply use it as a guide to see if you're objective or subjective. The answer is rather clear in your case, and in Marjon's.

I care not what you rank my commentary, I simply use it as a guide to see if you're objective or subjective. The answer is rather clear in your case, and in Marjon's.

And you do this how?

Precedent, factual content, context, ranking data available through user profile, etc.

Not very difficult when you watch the screen name association. Physorg is a very cliqui environment from what I've seen and experienced. I've found subjectivity to be ruling most who avidly rank over objectivity of those who rarely rank.

AGW/Environment, evolution, and quantum mechanics articles are the most contentious while medical (excluding biomedical), and behavioral are typically less contentious. People act along patterns in all cases with rare exception, your actions speak to who you are.

I would be extremely surprised by the results of this experiment if the results were any different.

Of course high sugar drinks affect blood pressure. high carbohydrate diets in general affect many aspects of poor health in an otherwise well fed person. Drinking sugary drinks is as bad as eating sugar lollies or high fat foods.

You want to be healthy and shed some of that excess fat then start eating healthy and that includes what you drink. Even excess alcoholic drinks is just as bad as high sugar drinks and as the study found cutting back just one sugar drink a day means an improvement.

Our physiology does not allow us to consume sugar at a rate of more than about once a month without some kind of trade off. And if we are drinking a coke a day then that is way too much.

The % fructose in HFCS varies depending on use. For soft drinks it is typically 45% fructose, which is less than the 50% in sucrose. What makes sucrose different is that the enzyme sucrase is required to split the glucose and fructose, so the availability of sucrase has a rate-limiting effect on the digestive uptake rate of fructose.