Monday, September 27, 2010
It's everywhere
Here. Another article about food. I particularly like how the article points out that HFCS is not bad but, it's the amount we consume that is. (might I add, DUH) Though, I have to disagree (only a little) with this portion of the article because I think HFCS is much more dangerous than sugar because it is put into more products than any other sweetener and it's products that we don't always associate with sugar either like Ketchup, dressings, spaghetti sauce, and canned soups. Even if you didn't consume one sweet in the day, you may very well have reached your max on sugar without even knowing it so I think that HFCS is a bad, sneaky little booger. Read the labels, I know I know but, how would you know when an ingredient is really a HFCS in disguise? I read that chicory, inulin, iso glucose, glucose-fructose syrup, and fruit fructose are all names that equal HFCS, go figure!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I know that most people think that sugar is sugar is sugar, no matter what name it goes by. But some of the research coming out of the testing labs indicate that HFCS affect the body differently than cane sugar, by slowing the metabolism and increasing triglycerides. Only time and more testing will tell for sure. Because my trigs are too high, I am following this research with great interest.
Hi, GardenofDaisies! It's a tough thing to monitor, for sure. I'm trying to teach my 11 yr. old how to make healthy choices and it's proving to be a harder task than I imagined.
Post a Comment