Why are so many people in their 20s and 30s such picky eaters these days?

@jehova the omnivores dillema

@jehova Can you explain this for us? I assume you were told the information I ask:

Were you told, what is Glucose?

"~Ose" is "~sugar", a hydrocarbon so "organic" chemical.

Of the several vegetable "oses" Glucose is a sugar made within most plants as the base for their main structural material, Cellulose.


Were you told what is "corn-syrup"? Commonly but not only made from maize, hence "corn", it is a mix of plant sugars: glucose, fructose, maltose and saccharides. It can be processed to turn some of the glucose to fructose, making it taste sweeter. Presumably the lecture covered this?


What is "organic mercury"? Did the lecturer define that?

An organic compound is one based on the element Carbon, plus usually hydrogen and oxygen, so most biological compounds are organic.

Mercury is a metallic element locked up in Nature mainly in its ore mineral, Cinnabar, chemically Mercury Sulphide, which of course is not organic.


Plants can absorb some non-organic compounds including metallic ones. Indeed they need certain metallic elements, and so do animals including us (bones and teeth, for example, are made of calcium phosphate). Not mercury compounds though, except perhaps accidentally in some way.

So were you taught how corn-syup might contain mercury? From spraying the source plants with mercuric pesticides? Or, from some study of crops in some specific area whose soil is naturally rich in cinnabar by regional geology? *


What is "everything"? I take this really meaning corn-syrup being a near-universal sweetener for manufactured foods and some home cooking. I.e. foods from fairly complicated recipes including sweeteners, rather than simply "processed" such as canned fruit, cut meat, table-sugar or basic bread. Plain white sugar is nearly-pure sucrose.


So what is the real link between corn-syrup and diabetes? If any?


Were you told what is Diabetes, and the significance and source of glucose in our bodies?

Glusoce is a sugar carried by the blood for use as fuel by the cells. Diabetes is the body's failure to produce the insulin necessary to regulate that blood sugar level. So how does eating something containing no glucose, such as a plant syrup modified to turn its glucose to fructose, "cause" diabetes?

Where does our glucose come from?

We eat much of it, and what we don't ingest, we make internally!

We know plants make glucose to turn into their cellulose - a polymer of glucose, and the main compound of the bits of plants we eat. These are our "carbohydrates" in dietary terms, directly or via products like grain and flour.

We eat many carbohydrates including cellulose; the liver breaks them down to produce among many other chemicals, a sugar called Glycogen. It stores that and when necessary, turns it to Glucose, the our cells' fuel-sugar.

Insulin is produced by the pancreas to regulate the level of glucose in the blood within fine limits. Diabetics need carefully control what sugars they eat but although that would include corn-syrup, the syrup or lack of it cannot "cause" diabetes.

So corn-syrup could indeed affect diabetes already in progress simply by being sugars; though a poor diet excessively rich in sugar will encourage the disease to start by long-term over-doses of "oses".


The message seems we should rely more on the cellulose (glucose polymer), less on sucrose and raw glucose; and let the liver and pancreas decide on the glucose!


I Iearnt the above by a few minutes of simple but careful research on top of basic general knowledge. I wonder what the lecture was supposed to be about, and its educational quality.

+++++

*naturally...

Back in the 1980s, I think it was, well-meaning officials strongly advised the residents of the village of Shipham, near Briston in SW England, not to eat vegetables grown in their own gardens. The soil was rich in zinc and other metallic compounds by both natural processes and local, former mining waste. The locals showed the visitors the local grave-yard: plenty of octagenarians and nonegenarians who had all existed on their home-grown foods. The embarrassed officials discreetly left... The truth was the plants were not absorbing the zinc, arsenic, lead, etc., or at least not concentrating them in the edible parts.

@ArishMell it will take time for me to answer your entire quandry but yes the insoluble nature of corn syrup leads in part to it being indigestible, though it is sweet prompting the production of insulin, it is indigestible by insulin; its fructose not glucose. Resulting in diabetes. Biomeecury is an semisoluble form of mercury produced in the breakdown of insoluble fructose. As a biproduct when fructose interacts with insulin.
I will need to review my published work, i published in 2007. That was the basics. Ultimately as fructose in corn syrup degrades while interacting with insulin ebbs and flows the interaction of insulin and corn syrup produces an analog (semisoluble form of sweetener (classified in Europe as fructose-glucose syrup) causing a spike of blood sugar. Because fructose isnt glucose when the body attempts to digest fructose with insulin it produces a water resistant form of mercury. Not mercury but similarly insoluble and noticably neurotoxic. Documentation suggests it may contribute to increases in adhd and autism. But that was only a minor correlation based on literature review.
As noted i will get back to you with more specifics upon reviewing my paper.
Its been 18 years.

@ArishMell so additional enzymes are used in producing the sweetener known as corn syrup.(it contains no glucose(C6H12O6 known as sugar) One of the waste products of the enzymes used to process corn into fructose-glicose produces waste products similar to those expelled by digestion. Corn syrup digests to become high concentrations of mercury like waste. Though these biomercury end products are mostly excreted much of the waste produced contains mercury, "water soluble" mercury is quite resistant to disolution in water.
Biomercury is contained in all living cells. It especially builds up during digestion in cells. On an atomic level.

@jehova It cannot be "mercury", "biomercury", "mercuric" or "mercury-like" unless any of the compounds are fromed with the element mercury as an ingredient.

There is nothing else like mercury anyway: it is a metal liquid at room temperature; though like all metals is insoluble in water; like most is non-reactive with it; and like many, is poisonous.


I looked up the term "biomercury", half expecting to see "Page not found". No, the term does exist but not as a metabolite as you were apparently told. Nor as any other specific chemical compound.

Every reference I found is about mercury compounds within organisms and their chemisty as a pollutant. Absorbed by plants or animals, their usual source is industrial waste or leachates from landfill sites. I did not pursue it enough to find if the natural mercury compound cinnabar (its ore) is included, but that would be restricted to few areas anyway, and probably in very low concentrations.


Elements by definition can not be manufactured by any chemical process, biological or not; only isolated from their original compounds. I think elemental byproducts are unusual in biochemistry apart from the oxygen released by photosythesis and the carbon remaining from decomposition or combustion in confined conditions. (The black stuff; e.g. peat, probably "coffin liquor", coal and soot).

Mercury compounds cannot possibly be made by any organism in the natural way, but might be in organisms by accidental absorbtion, as they are not normal biological chemicals. A few metals are necessary, mainly in trace amounts, but not Hg.



In animals, the main, normal metallic compounds are of calcium and phosphorus (for bone material), potassium and sodium (typically, nerve function electrolytes). Iron of course too, and in elemental form as free Fe molecules, as the oxygen-binder carried within the haemoglobin.

No aluminum, no copper, no lead, no mercury....

Processing corn syrup uses enzymes to convert plant-sugars to glucose. Well, yes, that would be logical. It is only copying nature. Our bodies do just the same thing.

Enzymes come in a huge range but are all proteins that catalyse biochemical reactions far too slow otherwise. So being biochemical they are made principally of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen plus nitrogen and in some, reactive metals like magnesium or phosphorous.

They will not contain mercury nor make anything remotely "like" it, nor any other metal not necessary and normal to living organisms, except by accidental ingestion of compounds that would very likely be toxic. Some toxins do indeed work by damaging or blocking enzymes.




I beginning to think this lecture you attended was at best very misleading, to promote a particular cause or sales pitch, if I can see its flaws just from middle-school and general-knowledge level. Worse, it looks distorted. A further clue is the reference to excreted metabolites, I suspect intended to make corn-syrup seem suitably even more unpleasant.

I could forgive it if the subject was pollution by mercury compounds and other toxins, but this appears not the case. It looks more like a "let's condemn corn-syrup" exercise.

Have you wasted your money on a "snake-oil" talk? Who presented the lecture, for what purpose, on whose behalf?

@ArishMell organic mercury compounds especially methylmercury (MeHg)form when organic molecules degrade. Most often found in pesticides. Its a poison with greater concentration in corn syrup than just about anywhere else.

@ArishMell i conducted the research on its neurotoxcity. Corn syrup bad. Its obvious. Also monoculture problematic we, as a species, know that. Yet corn is subsized used in everything requires enzyme to produce a sweet syrup that contains no glucose (instead HFCS, FRUCTOSE being the key word) and is bereft of nutrition.

@jehova You can overdose on anything and sugar provides only energy. It is not nutritious otherwise. Eat too much and it makes you fat.

But you won't be helped if you come across sources that waffle about "mercury" or try to convince you that enzymes are somehow "wrong". We make our own to process various types of sugar, so I don't know what point the lecture was trying to make about enzymes. I wonder if the lecturer knew, too.

I agree monoculture farming is bad, but it is not at all obvious to me that corn-syrup as such is "bad". It is only an aqueous solution of various sugars, so useful as a sweetener and an ingredient for things like toffee (syrup, sugar, butter and water), but not much else. You could use sugar-cane syrup or honey too, in some recipes at least - the syrup may affect the flavour and honey certainly will* . Honey is more complicated but the syrup is still an aqueous solution of "~oses".

Fructose? It is a natural plant sugar - found mainly in fruit as its name suggests. If you don't want to risk fructose don't eat fresh fruits.

If you want a sugar-free diet (other than what is naturally in the food) one of the main things to avoid is any cola. Irrespective of brand and their labels, any cola by definition is almost purely a carbonated solution of caramel (roasted sugar).


Incidentally, if an ingredient is not soluble in water, you might not be able to absorb it anyway. Though I still suggest not putting powered cinnabar on your cereals.

''''''''

* Honey:

(I was told by someone on personal experience that honey fried with liver and onions takes the slightly bitter edge off, though I have not tried it so can't say either way! The onions add some sugar, so are themselves sweeteners to the liver even though a raw onion is not obviously sweet.)

@ArishMell yes excess of anything is bad. I can overdose on water for example. Which adds to my point that corn syrup has reached and maintains excessive production since about vietnam era.
Corn is also a very water intensive crop (also a problem).

Energy is needed to allow nutruents to be processed from other foods. Glucose (c6h12o6) is natural and prompts insulin so it can be digested to be energy. Whereas fructose (especially from corn) is not sugar and indigestible by insulin. As such it cannot be processed to become energy by human digestion processes (maybe when humans evolve further?)

Corn requires significant processing to become hfcs (be sweet) so much that the byproducts of that processing contains toxic elements. Ignore it if you want.
Fructose is not produced by corn it is processed and extracted to become a sweetener. Then added to everything to be sweet and thus taste better to gain consumers. It is not glucose, which is digestible by insulin. It is fructose and is not digestible by insulin,
Instead results in blood sugar issues.
Main thing to avoid is soda containing hfcs (not only cola). Sugar is not the MAIN problem corn syrup Is.
Excess of anything is bad. Corn syrup is in nearly everything in the American diet!
Honey is great and has antibacterial properties plus it contains ,usually, 30%glucose.

@jehova Over-production in monocultures of anyhting is a serious problem in many parts of the world. Palm-opil plantations are another problem.

I don't know the chemistry but insulin does not "digest" any sugar. It regulates the level in the blood, but to do that must mean it can increase its release as well as reduce it, from the liver.

Fructose, sucrose, maltose, lactose and glucose are all "sugar" - but different types of sugar. It is though glucose than our cells feed on (plus needing water, oxygen and any specific chemicals) - and our bodies convert the other sugars to glucose for them.

Wht annoyed me about that lecture as you describe it, was how it went on about mercury. That is irrelevant unless any particular brand of corn-syrup is found to contain mercuric compounds from industrial pollution - and that would indeed be a very serious matter.

Corn-syrup as such is not wrong, but how it is produced and used may be.

One point about honey is that it should not be fed to babies. I am not quite sure why - I did know, from friends who have hives and from whom I have bought honey.

This is quoted from the National Health Service's web-site section on sugar in the diet. Note it includes honey and corn-syrup; but not lactose (milk sugar - to which some people are intolerant):


It then continues to advice on diet. I still have a sweet tooth but have cut down a bit on sugar, and tend to buy own-brand rather then "big-name" sauces and cereals for their usually-lower additions of sugar and salt.

@ArishMell corn syrup is not the primary culprit high fructose corn syrup which is proccessed is the guilty party. Again moderation is key. Hfcs is in so many foods sold in the usa. 30g a day. . . Fat chance (pardon the pun). One 12 oz coke has 26grams.i prefer apple juice but only non corn syrup brands are any good for you and they are way more expensive.
Thats the dilemma price vs quality. So no soda no brand name cereal (maybe plain cheerios). No baked goodz. Only cardboard.

@jehova Whichever way you look at it the point is excessive sugar.

I was talking about health and diet with a group of friends today, sparked by one telling us of his possible cancer worries - though not diet-related. This led more generally to my learning that intestinal cancer rates in Britain at least are increasing in relatively young people; the culprit being very poor diets of mainly very over-processed and "fast" foods. A lack of physical exercise may be contributing to some.

Unfortunately microwaveable ready-meals and poor-quality take-away foods are made to be very attractive, not least by the spurious convenience for the former, and supposed fashion-element for certain brands of the latter.

I confess I do use ready-meals, but limit their frequency.


You have just sent me on a quick tour of my kitchen, picking out the non-canned, "convenience" foods. Admittedly I do not have much food in the house, but I was hunting for Corn Syrup and found none!

A Tesco (supermarkets) own-brand Sweet & Sour Chicken has no Corn Syrup but contains Rapeseed, Palm and Sesame Seed Oils; and Salt. Similarly with the same brand Apple Turnovers.

A Bird's-Eye Chicken Curry has only the Rapeseed Oil.

Aldi and rivals Lidl both sell own-badged packs of microwave-in the-bag flavoured rices. Aldi's holds Maltodextrose (presumably maltose + dextrose but still sugar); its rival just has "sugar" (probably just sugar-cane or sugar-beet sucrose). Both use Sunflower Oil; the Lidl one says "Sunflower and/or Rapeseed Oil".

I would not expect oils in cereal but the Harvest Morn conflakes do admit to sugar (probably "ordinary" sucrose) and salt.

The two most common cooking oils in the shops I have seen are of Olive and Sunflower; yet none of the above use Olive Oil; perhaps by relaltive commercial availability.


I am rather partial to the Reina "Jellicious" dessert-jellies sold in packs of single-portion tubs. No oils but the two sugars are "sugar" and dextrose. I think the base "jelly" ingredient is the blend of carrageenan and locust-bean gum; suggesting unlike gelatine-based jelly these would be acceptable to vegetarians, although this is not stated. Carrageen is an edible seaweed.

You can, or could, buy dextrose sweets intended as fast energy-boosters in situations like outdoor-pursuits, although the problem with sugar-tablets or sugar-packed confections like Mars Bars is the short-lived benefit can be followed by a low-energy dip.


All other ingredients in all of these, apart from the chicken, water and salt, and some Calcium Chloride as a stabiliser in the jelly, are straightforwards vegetable materials; and none hide behind the notorious "E-Numbers" that gave processed-foods a bad name but did include innocent ingredients as well as ones we might question. Also, the packets all give nutritional information.

The E-number scheme is a well-meaning EU system that cuts across language-barriers and is more compact than long words, but of course only frightens people, because the definitions take a bit of finding.

All this information on the packets is there by law, though usually in tiny font and whether you bother to read it is your own choice. At least I seem safe from the dreaded Corn Syrup!