Re: Comparing hot dogs to vegetables and natural fruit sugar to HFCS? - edited to delete duplicate info

I simply do not agree with your interpretation of the link that provides information pointing out that hot dogs have far few nitrates than vegetables.  I'll take her educated view over yours any day.

Regarding cancer cells and fructose:  However well cancer cells may be able to utilize fructose in vitro, it is quite a different ballgame in vivo. You see, virtually no fructose actually makes it to the cells, cancerous or otherwise, in the first place.  Fructose is circulated from our digestive tract through the hepatic portal vein to the liver (The hepatic portal vein is a vein that brings all digested nutrients from the digestive tract to the liver before it goes into the general circulation.).  Thus fructose from the digestive system reaches the liver before any other cells in the body.  The liver then converts about 50% of this into glucose or lactate and the rest is primarily converted into triglycerides (fat).  Fructose is not used directly by any cell in the body, it is almost 100% metabolized by the liver. 

I don't doubt that high consumption of fructose may increase the growth of cancer cells, but would opine that it does so primarily from the increased glucose that comes from the body's processing of fructose.  When it comes to natural fructose in fruits, a bowl of fruit may contain only a couple of grams of natural fructose, whereas a large soft drink may contain 60 grams of fructose from high fructose corn syrup.  The best advice for cancer patients is to go easy on the fruits (consume three to four times as much vegetables as fruits), avoid heavy consumption of pure fruit juice, and avoid all high fructose corn syrup sweetened drinks and products as much as possible. 

You're back to the HFCS and nowhere in that study did if differentiate HFCS from fructose.  You are trying to twist a valid study that if we get on the band wagon we can get to congress and get the FDA to do something about HFCS but no you have to qualify it to some microcosm that isn't even relative by discrediting that in vitro cancer cells thrive on FRUCTOSE and make it say something else.  You then give an "opinion" - and that's all it is, regarding some kind of "good" fructose vs a "bad" one.  That is not what the study said.  You are placing your uneducated guess against science, the same thing that many, many, good alternative folks do. They take a small piece of  good information regarding real concerns and apply it unrelated elements and real science steps in brings their opinions back to reality they discredit it.  Sorry Charlie, you're no different than all the rest.

And finally, I did not say that man has been living ON fruits or that man has been consuming fruits on a year round daily basis for all of our existence.  However, it is undeniable that man has been consuming fruits wherever and whenever they were to be found for as long as they have been found.  Such has not been the case with high fructose corn syrup.

Well here's what you wrote:

"Man has been living with and been nourished by fruits for eons."

And that statement is baloney.  You are implying that humans have benefited from fruits since time immemorial and they haven't.  In the entire Northern Hemisphere of our planet they have had fruit in significant quantities for no more a couple of months a year - until after the Civil War.  Even at that most of the fruit in Europe was consumed by the wealthy because peasants and serfs were on a bare substance existence for thousands of years and did not readily have access to fruits that were available.  So your statement is completely without merit.  Germans are known as Krauts - because they lived on cabbage products, something that stored very well and was common in Europe.  Most of the common people ate little more than grain products, tubers, small amounts of whole milk, little meat and hardly any fruit.  I'm not taking back my true statement that you are peddling BS with what I copied above.  It is not true and you can try and wriggle out of it any way you wish but you made it and you get to live with it.  

We have increased our consumption of fruit a great deal because it is readily available but nobody know what the consequences of that increase means - and the study that I love points out one of them.

Simple things like potatoes which helped Europe survive famine when grain crops failed, weren't even introduced to Europe until after Christopher made a few round robins to the New World.  Pumpkins and squash, another late fall product also arrived with Mr. Chris.  Tomatoes too - which were originally thought to be poisonous, because the belong to the night shade family.  We in the New World also profited than what Europe did with what Chris and company brought this direction and yes fruit was a part of it - be even then fruit was highly seasonal.  You can't store melons very long - days at most. 

When people walk into today's supermarket (a very modern invention) they have no idea what the world was like 50 years ago, let alone 200 years or more ago - and you are one of them.

I think we're going to simply agree to disagree.