Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Does HFCS count? (Score 5, Informative) 288

by codeButcher (#47936265) Attached to: Study Finds Link Between Artificial Sweeteners and Glucose Intolerance

sugar: 50% fructose, 50% glucose HFCS: 55% fructose, 45% glucose

zomg, clearly hfcs is the reason people are getting so much fatter.

Most of the glucose one ingests goes directly to "blood sugar", where insulin (if you still have sufficient of the latter **) mops up any unused glucose, converts it to a storable molecule, and stores it in muscle or fatty tissues until needed. Fructose, on the other hand, mostly gets converted to fats in the liver, which are then stored until needed.

OK, "needed" does not only refer to exercise ONLY, but also to metabolic processes (e.g. breaking up more complex sugars/starches for digestion), thinking, etc. - it's a general cell fuel. So glucose is more readily available in the blood and thus gets used more and stored less. Fructose in the presence of glucose gets stored more than fructose alone.

Sorry, no citations, as I was hard pressed to find sufficient details (in layman's terms) on the internet to confirm this when I read it in an article. I had to track down a dietitian to confirm it - apparently it's common knowledge in that field.

** = Diabetics usually do not produce sufficient insulin, as you may know. The excess glucose in the blood damages proteins in a process called Glycosylation (layman's description, it's not that simple in reality) - including a lot of important tissues like coronary veins. HbA1c is glycosylated hemoglobin which can be easily tested via blood tests - a blood percentage HbA1c against "normal" hemoglobin above about 6.4% represents a sudden increase in risk of cardiovascular disease.

Comment: Re:Thinly veiled campaigning (Score 1) 489

by codeButcher (#47935021) Attached to: Scotland's Independence Vote Could Shake Up Industry

Call me fazed by politics, but in the moods I get when my vitamin D levels drop too low, I imagine that WHATEVER side wins, it will be carefully calculated to be the outcome that gives the maximum financial gain to those who already hold the majority of financial power. The whole Yes/No hullabaloo is just to keep the production units (euphemistically called "voters") complacent in the notion that they actually had enough power to bring about the change simply by drawing a little cross mark.

Talking of changes. I caught some wind of the promises made by some British politicians about greater self-determination for Scotland if the No vote wins. Isn't that a bit belated though? Like the boss who counter-offers when you want to resign to take up alternative employment - if your work is worth that, why didn't he raise your salary before?

But in the end, it's just some musings about first world problems...

The sooner you fall behind, the more time you have to catch up.