We don't need no stinkin' blog! Apparently, I have run out of things to say. Yes, I've got nothin. Ab, so, lute, ly, nothing. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Zero. Ne rien.
Hmmmm. So why am I wasting my time and yours? I really don't know. I'm working through that as I type. So far, I'm toying with the idea of comparing HFCS and table sugar. Because it amuses and appalls me that now that we all agree that HFCS (gasp and shudder!) is bad for us, we seem to think that sugar, good old-fashioned table sugar, is not bad for us. I kind of laugh when I hear this. I had a conversation with friends yesterday who were really avoiding HFCS, but not table sugar, and avoiding gluten (as far as I know, these guys have no sensitivity to gluten), but not baked goods made from other highly refined grains. They've jumped on the anti-HFCS and the gluten-free bandwagons (both VERY popular right now), but don't seem to understand the "why" of either one.
So let me give a teeny bit of why, as I understand it after a few years of reading and research. Why not sugar? Well, what I did not understand until reading up on sugar and other sweeteners, is that sugar, regular old made-from-cane sugar, is 50% glucose and 50% fructose. Demon HFCS can have as much as 95% fructose, but the standard garden variety HFCS is 55% fructose. WHAT? Yes. The difference between sugar and HFCS is 5% fructose. Not as huge a difference as I had thought. Aside from the proportions of fructose and glucose, the other difference is that sugar is a disaccharide, which means that the fructose and glucose are bonded together, whereas the HFCS has separate glucose and fructose floating around freely.
Glucose, which is found in starches like potatoes and in regular corn syrup, does not taste sweet and is not really bad for you (but don't go chugging a bottle of straight Karo syrup -- you should eat whole foods). Fructose, however, IS bad for you. It all has to be metabolized in the liver, which can't handle it (technical discussion omitted) and it ends up as fat in your blood stream, in your tissue, in your ass, thighs, and belly. Not pretty. Not healthy. Good Morning America! And welcome to obesity, diabetes, heart disease and cancer. So yes, HFCS is really bad for you. And, guess what, so is frickin' sugar. You should not be consuming either one. But Americans are addicted. There's a candy bar around every corner. And we just don't want to hear it. It is not FUN to eat vegetables for breakfast. I know, because I'm doing it. I just had salad for breakfast. Not so yum. But it is worth it to me to have my health, and to have my health, it needs to be a lifestyle. You can't just eat healthy occasionally when you're being "good." It doesn't work that way and it can take days to get your body back into fat burning ketosis. (I recommend more books on carbohydrates, like The Art and Science of Low Carbohydrate Living to understand fat-burning ketosis. This book explains it in a way that was understandable and motivating to me.)
Now, there are some who say that sugar is better than HFCS because the fructose and glucose are bonded together and processing takes longer. Well, that is certainly possible, and I'm willing to say that's 100% true. So what? Is fructose suddenly healthy? No. Any advantage sugar may have over HFCS is marginal at best and is completely wiped out by the fact that it's still frickin terrible for you!! I recommend Good Calories, Bad Calories, by Gary Taubes, Suicide by Sugar, by Nancy Appleton, or any number of other books out there explaining how sugar and other sweeteners and/or carbohydrates affect the body. If you don't want to invest that much time, at least watch this video of Dr. Robert Lustig speaking on the effects of sugar. It is the best 1.5 hours you can spend on your health. Do some research for yourself -- there isn't anything out there (unless maybe the sugar industry's got some publications, which I'm sure they must) showing that sugar is good for you. And there is LOTS of information, good information, showing that sugar is bad for you. That's how they sold us HFCS in the first place, remember? It's ALL bad for you. Don't eat or drink sweet shit, stupid. (Sorry, now I'm getting worked up.) But how dumb are we that we KEEP eating and drinking it and wondering why we are sick and fat? Stop it.
Okay, so on to gluten. I happen to be allergic to wheat, and the allergy is likely to the protein in wheat, which is gluten. I'm not allergic to all gluten (which is found in wheat, rye, barley, and kind of oats), just wheat. So I don't eat it, because I'd like to be well and not sick and inflamed. Is everyone allergic or sensitive to gluten? No. Some people tolerate it just fine. But there are a lot of people who do not tolerate and/or process gluten well (my reading indicates maybe even more than 50% of the population, but no one is certain), and people have discovered this, and they feel better when they don't eat gluten, so gluten-free has become very popular. I'm fine with gluten-free, it's not a bad thing. Climb aboard the gluten-free train. That's cool. BUT, that does not mean it's a good idea to load up on gluten-free bread, crackers, cookies, pasta, etc. You're just substituting one evil for another. I admit it, I did it too. When I had to stop eating wheat, I went for all the substitutes that I could find -- anything to try to maintain my "normal" eating habits -- cereal or bread for breakfast, pastas and pizzas for dinner, crackers for parties -- you know, the usual. I've got boxes of rice crackers and quinoa pasta right now. So I understand. I shouldn't criticize -- I've been there myself and it took me a few years to work through it. Hell, I'm still working through it (meat has me in a bit of a tailspin). But here's the deal. Highly refined/processed carbohydrates have basically the same effect on the body as sugar. (See the books mentioned in this blog and in my atopic library blog.) It's not as bad as shoveling sugar into your pie hole, but it's not good either. So if you are giving up gluten, good for you. Just don't replace it with a bunch of the same shit made from other highly-processed grains, usually corn or rice. These grains, even if whole (which they are not -- they are highly processed by the time they get into cracker condition), do not have the nutrients that you get from eating your vegetables and whole foods. Yes, I'm quite the Debbie Downer. I'm sorry. But go easy even on the gluten-free stuff, and frickin' stop eating anything sweet people! Nothing good can come of it. It's not worth it. (Screaming, crying, wailing, gnashing of teeth. Does anyone gnash anymore? Just me?)
So, who's ready for some more salad?
P.S. I forgot to mention that I'm off to Paris, London (get to see some Olympic fencing matches!), and then Bordeaux in SW France for my big 5 oh! I'm excited/scared. Okay, giddy. I've got to take pants with large pockets for large bunches of carrots in case they run out of "bio" meat and veggies in Europe.
