But sucrose is a complex sugar made up of glucose and fructose. When it
is broken down, it give you 1/2 glucose, and 1/2 fructose. So would not
sucrose have the same problem, but with twice as much of it needed?
Marshall
Nenah Sylver wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: "Marshall Dudley"
<mdud...@king-cart.com>
To: <silver-list@eskimo.com>
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 7:58 AM
Subject: Re: CS>Bad Sugars, fructose, and Others
Why is fructose considered worse than sucrose? Sucrose is primarily
found in sugar cane and sugar beets, but fruits contain fructose,
which is normally considered good. Bees convert the sucrose in nectar
to combination of fructose and glucose, which is also considered good.
Marshall
Marshall,
It depends on what "good" means, and who is considering it.
Fructose cannot be metabolized anywhere in the body except by the
liver. The liver has limited capacity to do this. Any fructose that
cannot be transformed and utilized right away is converted to fat.
You guys'll have to wait until I put up this article, comparing many
different types of sugars and the sources, on my website -- unless you
want to do the research yourself.
All in moderation. If you're healthy, you can eat sugar. If you're
borderline, you have to be very careful. If you're not healthy, stay
away until your condition improves. At least, that's the guidelines I
would follow. And of course, no artificial sugars under any
circumstances.
Nenah
--
The Silver List is a moderated forum for discussing Colloidal Silver.
Instructions for unsubscribing are posted at: http://silverlist.org
To post, address your message to: silver-list@eskimo.com
Address Off-Topic messages to: silver-off-topic-l...@eskimo.com
The Silver List and Off Topic List archives are currently down...
List maintainer: Mike Devour <mdev...@eskimo.com>
