This whole "Corn Sugar" bullshit is just so fucking lame

[MrScorpio]

"All sugar is the same, the body can't tell the difference.."

Right, it's ALL bad, but some are worse than others, and they're trying to fake everyone out with this puppy fersher.

I mean, FUCK, I wasn't very good with chemistry... But this doesn't look the same to me:


http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-difference-between-dextrose-fructose-and-glucose.htm

Hey, assholes, did you know that people can look this shit up on the Internet?

The most maddening thing is is that OUR TAX DOLLARS are paying for this crap through corn subsidies. The greedy bastards.


Doesn't look like the stuff that I sprinkle on my shredded wheat to me.

[BrklynLiberal]

1. You are 100% right.. the corn syrup makers are framing the debate..using language to control

the market and the people....something the repukes do very well. Too bad the Dems haven't got a clue.

[Romis]

100. Free Online Video

Dr. Robert Lustig has proven that high fructose corn syrup is a toxin.
Watch this 1½ hr. video (full screen capable) film.
The title is Sugar: The Bitter Truth

http://www.sugarshockblog.com/2009/09/sugar-the-bitter-truth.html

[skepticscott]

106. Everything is a toxin

Including water. What's your point?

[StClone]

110. All the links: HFCS = Sucrose

In caloric, insulin reaction and obesity. Both bad end of story.

[G_j]

2. K&R

[gtar100]

3. First it's 'corn sugar'; then it'll be just 'sugar'.

Corn growers and HFCS makers know the writing is on the wall. Their crap is bad for consumption and the truth of that is getting around. But do the right thing? No, never. This is the good ol' USA. It's more important to make a buck than to be concerned about.... oh, say... our health!

[louis-t]

22. Makers of genetically modified foods doing the same thing.

They don't want any special labeling required.

[nemo137]

150. Except for the fact that GM foods have the potential to the very good things.

Wresting them from monsanto's frankly satanic grasp is another matter altogether, but it bugs me when anti-corporate gets anti-science.

[louis-t]

192. I say GM corn should only be used for ethanol.

Problem is, it starts spreading to other farms. The "weed resistant" crops seem to be causing super weeds to develop.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[VMI Dem]

5. High fructose corn syrup sucks.

It needs to go.

[Bluebear]

126. Agreed. NO good comes out of it.

[stray cat]

6. cutting out all forms of sugar would be smarter

[MrScorpio]

9. Just yesterday, I was looking at a site with a bunch of before after shots of celebs

The most common weight loss technique was going carb-free.

So, you're quite right.

[Roon]

28. I used to body build and now a bit about nutrition

Not all carbs are bad, you still need to eat the good carbs at least. Like oatmeal, whole wheat breads, and brown rice. The mutli-grain stuff works too.

You are correct though, if you cut ALL carbs from your diet and exercise a bit, you will lose weight.

[valerief]

45. I hate the idea of cutting fruits and veggies from my diet. They're the best carbs! nt

[Roon]

46. Fruits and veggies are a must!

Basically, you want to eat like a caveman.

[valerief]

47. So why do people talk about cutting carbs when that means cutting fruits and veggies? nt

[Roon]

48. I have no idea

but fruits and veggies are a must if you want to eat clean and healthy.

[Recursion]

59. Because people never read past the first chapter of diet books

First off, pretty much everybody agrees sugar and white flour aren't very healthy, so every diet wants you to cut back on those.

Now, some diets make a point of a very-low-carb or even no-carb period at the beginning (which will probably come with a fairly dramatic weight loss). This isn't meant to be sustained for very long, but, people are lazy and don't read the rest of the book and think that's all it is. (Though, even on the famous "Atkins" plan you're still supposed to eat a green salad every day during the initial period.) The purpose of that extremely-low-carb period is partly about bloodsugar but mostly psychological: get people out of the habit of having sugars and simple carbs.

[Moonbat2]

92. Is is simple

there are complex carbs (Whole wheat,veggies,some fruit) and SIMPLE carbs (suger based)Niether one is evil. Just need a proper mix
(protien,carb,fat)

[demwing]

105. Because Veggies are actually Low in Carbs

and though some fruits are comparable to grains in carbohydrate count, they are also high in vitamins, minerals, and dietary fiber. Of course, eating a can of peaches packed in heavy syrup mitigates whatever benefit you get by eating more fruits.

It isn't as simple as just cutting carbs, but it isn't like learning to speak Chinese either. Limit processed foods as much as possible, watch calories and carbs, base your diet around fruits and vegetables, and especially avoid refined sugars and flours (white bread, pasta, bagels, bakery items, etc) they have virtually no nutritional value, and are insanely fattening. Eat whole grains and proteins in reasonable amounts, and don't eat late at night - your body doesn't digest well while you sleep.

Also - don't rely on pre-conceptions about what is healthy for you. Do your own research. Raisins, for example, are marketed as a healthy snack. Maybe they are, compared to chocolate, but a cup of raisins has about 150 carbs, and about 600 calories! Compare that to a cup of Raspberries at 14 carbs and 60 calories, or to an apple at about 25 carbs and 80 calories. My point is that you should get some decent comparison charts (Google is your friend) and find out what you like, what it costs your diet, and then make your choices from there

Get a bit of exercise every day (go for a 1/2 hour walk each night, ride a bike or swim on the weekends - every little bit counts) and each month you'll be that much closer to your health goals.

[hlthe2b]

118. Non-starchy veggies are low in carbs...

The problem is that the average person thinks potatoes, corn, carrots, peas... when they think veggies (as evidenced by this NYT article http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/26/magazine/26fob-domains-t.html?hpw). Though they are certainly not inherently unhealthy, they are more problematic for those that are carbohydrate sensitive. And, no Reagan, HFCS-loaded catsup is not a veggie.

But, yes, yellow squash, zucchini, greens, and much of what you would put in a green salad (mushrooms, onions, broccoli, cauliflower, radishes, celery, cucumber, etc., etc.) are quite low in carbs. And, while technically a fruit, tomatoes are not that high in carbs. And yes, the glycemic index is a good way to evaluate this issue. http://www.glycemicindex.com/

I think there is value in a lower fat version of low carb dieting (modified Atkins) for those who are insulin sensitive, especially because it gets the cravings under control and gives the dieter a chance to succeed, but these low carb veggies are critical to incorporating for the long term. One can not expect to be healthy without some balance in the diet.

which brings up my concerns for the ultra low fat diet that is being promoted to Clinton and others who have had coronary heart disease. While I don't doubt low fat is appropriate for protection against heart disease, the ultra low fat forms that Caldwell Esselstyn, Jr., M.D. (author, Prevent & Reverse Heart Disease) is promoting, excludes all fat--even monosaturated sources (including nuts)--even fish oil supplements. Given current research is looking closely at the role of statins in potentiating Alzheimers, excluding all fat may well be trading one major problem (CVD and stroke) for another--pre-senile dementia and a wide range of neurological disorders.

[demwing]

139. Well Clinton specified that he eats some fish

so he can't be excluding all oils. And if he had to choose which oils to keep, he done chose correctly -Fish is good for the heart and the brain. That, and some turkey, are the only meats we eat in my house.

[hlthe2b]

140. Eating fish is good, but in opposition to the diet Esselstyn promotes

If Clinton is eating it, good on him, because the diet promoted by Esselstyn does not allow any fish, meat, dairy, or fats--not even monounsaturated olive oil or fish oil supplements. That's what I am saying. I am arguing that Esselstyn is extreme, even if he gets results with the sickest of the sick cardiovascular patient.

The diet that Caldwell Esselstyn, Jr., M.D. (author, Prevent & Reverse Heart Disease) is promoting, which supposedly Clinton is following, does not even allow fish oil supplements, which I think is insane. Listen to him argue with Dean Ornish on this clip from CNN: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/25/cnns-wolf-blitzer-intervi_n_739134.html .

Frankly, I have always thought Ornish to be a bit extreme, but even he is in disagreement with the extreme notions of Dr. Esselstyn. That said, I'm glad, if Clinton is listening to Ornish and adding some source of monounsaturated fats (nuts, oil oil, nut oils) and EFAs, including fish and fish supplements in his diet.

Again, if you re-read my post, I am concerned about these physicians who are so fixated on preventing arterial plague with ultra low fat diets that they neglect to consider the positive effects of the essential fats on the neurological system and elsewhere in the body.

[MsPithy]

117. Glycemic Index

Not all carbs are bad. The glycemic index of how fast a carb raises your blood sugar was developed for diabetics. In all people a rapid rise in blood sugar (from eating refined sugar or "bad" carbs) causes a release of insulin, the "hunger hormone." Then you overeat. There are much better descriptions available if you google Glycemic Index.

The Glycemic Index is a handy way for all people to know which carbs are dangerous, meaning the carbs that trigger the overwhelming desire to overeat.

http://nutritiondata.self.com/topics/glycemic-index

[Kalyke]

163. Only for the first two weeks until you go into ketosis.

And you can still eat plenty of green veggies during those first two weeks.

After your body has rid itself of the sugar, you can then start adding these fruits and veggies:

•Sprouts (bean, alfalfa, etc.)
•Greens – lettuces, spinach, chard, etc.
•Hearty Greens - collards, mustard greens, kale, etc.
•Radicchio and endive count as greens
•Herbs - parsley, cilantro, basil, rosemary, thyme, etc.
•Bok Choy
•Celery
•Radishes
•Sea Vegetables (Nori, etc)
•Cabbage (or sauerkraut)
•Mushrooms
•Jicama
•Avocado
•Cucumbers (or pickles without added sugars)
•Asparagus
•Green Beans and Wax Beans
•Broccoli
•Cauliflower
•Peppers
•Green Bell Peppers
•Red Bell Peppers
•Jalapeno Peppers
•Summer Squash
•Zuchinni
•Scallions or green onions
•Bamboo Shoots
•Leeks
•Brussels Sprouts
•Snow Peas (pods)
•Tomatoes
•Eggplant
•Tomatillos
•Artichokes
•Fennel
•Onions
•Okra
•Spaghetti Squash
•Celery Root (Celeriac)
•Carrots (sparingly)
•Turnip (see Carb Counts of Root Vegetables)
•Water Chestnuts
•Pumpkin
•Small Amounts of Lemon or Lime
•Rhubarb
•Raspberries (more about berries on low carb diets)
•Blackberries
•Cranberries
•Strawberries
•Casaba Melon
•Papaya
•Watermelon
•Peaches
•Nectarines
•Blueberries
•Cantaloupes
•Honeydew Melons
•Apples


Basically, anything but potatoes and really sweet fruits like grapes, oranges and pineapples. Get your Vitamin C from a supplement and green leafy veg and then you'll be fine.

[Edweird]

69. Meh. I tried the paleo thing. Still had the same issues.

I realized that I am hypoglycemic and fruits trigger insulin. Not good. So I cut out the fruits and ended up essentially doing atkins induction and that's working for me.

[aquart]

17. Actually, that would probably kill you.

But go ahead. Try it.

[Edweird]

68. I'll keep you posted. It's been over a month and I'm still here.

[HuckleB]

116. What diet contains no sugars at all?

[geckosfeet]

78. If you are insulin resistant, carbs will kill you faster than Atkins.

[HuckleB]

31. +1

Although, I'll stick with my fruits, vegetables and whole grain breads.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

50. We need sugars. Not in excess, but SOME sugars. -nt

[localroger]

101. Actually, there are no sugars you need

You do need to eat some fat if you're not eating carbs, which cuts across a lot of "healthy eating" advise. But there are both essential proteins and essential fats which you must eat at least a little of; there are no essential carbs, and if you're not eating the 70 grams or so of carbs that it takes to keep your nervous system alive (the only organ that absolutely can't use any energy source other than glucose) your body will make the carbs you need from the fat you've eaten.

[ChiciB1]

122. Want To Add My Comment. About 6 Months Ago I Got Turned Onto Fruit Smoothies...

While I'm not diabetic, nor did I need to lose any real weight, since I've been drinking one a day, which I add Flaxseed to it, I've lost 11 lbs. and I feel better than I have in some time. I'm down to 115 which is okay because I'm a little over 5'4" so I'm not underweight either.

I'm not a Vegan, but I rarely eat meat simply because I prefer other foods. I do however have a thing for cheese now and again. And I LOVE almost any kind of beans!

Plus, since I've been drinking them I find I don't crave bakery foods like a glazed donut that I once did. Never was really big on sweets, but those glazed donuts did beckon me from time to time!

I eat a lot of vegetables too, very few I'll pass up! I still have my "moments" though, I like pretzels!

Just felt the need to have a say.

[RZM]

7. Maybe if this PR stunt doesn't work

They'll just change the first few letters of each word around and call it 'Shorn Cougar' -- with the symbol being a shaved mountain lion :)

[louis-t]

19. Haaaa! Good thing I finished my coffee already.

It would have been EVERYWHERE.

[JVS]

54. I think there is a magazine called that.

[rug]

8. I still miss Sugar Smacks.

What is this Honey Smacks crap?

[skepticscott]

107. And Sugar Corn Pops

And Sugar Frosted Flakes. And Chocolate Frosted Sugar Bombs.

[baldguy]

10. HFCS is to sugar as heroin is to raw opium.

[InvisibleTouch]

15. Good analogy...

...though I've long been of the mind that natural cane sugar isn't particularly harmful in moderate doses. Modified and artificial sweeteners, on the other hand, are poisons.

[louis-t]

20. Oh, that was their last argument: "in moderation".

Except it is everywhere, in everything. In large doses.

[AlbertCat]

108. "in moderation".

Here's Jackie Beat's take on the whole thing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqIpAyHJ2ws

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

32. Actually, artificial sweeteners are harmless.

Real natural sugars, on the other hand, like cane sugar and corn sugar can lead to obesity, tooth decay and diabetes when over-consumed.

[valerief]

44. I knew I'd find Mr. Sweet 'n Low here! nt

[Chan790]

49. It's too bad for him that on this argument he's verifiably wrong.

Aspertame is known to metabolize into methanol which further breaks down into formic acid (the active component of the venom of ants and bees) and formaldehyde.

Even its' manufacturer (Monsanto) doesn't debate that, they argue that the quantity is small, the temperature for metabolization is marginally higher than that of a human body limiting exposure and that fruit juice also contain methanol. (Fruit-derived methanol also has never been proven to metabolize inside mammals, unlike aspertame which has...simultaneous to study results that it was cytotoxic and carcinogenic in rats. Further that it caused optic damage.)

The initial FDA report on Aspertame rejected its' use in food. It was only after the election of Reagan in 1980 that was overturned without further research by the FDA. Note who donated millions to Ronald Reagan in 1980...Monsanto. Think they might have bought approval of their food additive which was known to cause cancer, cell damage and blindness in rats?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

61. And yet millions of people consume aspartame safely every day.

And there's never been a problem for the decades it's been on the market.

It'd be easier to take you seriously if you got the name right, and the manufacturer.

[rhett o rick]

74. I wouldnt touch the stuff. You go ahead. nm

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

134. Likewise, if you're really into pseudoscience, be my guest.

Have you got a legitimate reason to avoid artificial sweeteners? No, you don't.

[SOS]

175. Never been a problem?

As a heavy aspartame user I suffered severe heart arrhythmia.
So bad that a doctor told me to carry a copy of my EKG "just in case".
I used to pass out from lengthy heart rhythm pauses.

Then I read that of the thousands of aspartame complaints lodged at the FDA, the two most common
symptoms were vision disturbances and heart arrhythmia.

With that information, I immediately stopped using aspartame.

Within 24 hours my symptoms ceased and never returned.

So what should I believe?

My own experience or a press release from G.D. Searle?

[Scout]

191. well, you know, personal experience is just "anecdotal" so will be

dismissed, or you will (not in so many words) be called a liar by the usual suspects....

[Yeshuah Ben Joseph]

184. Donald Rumsfeld's signature is on the paperwork for the Aspartame patent

That should be reason enough not to want to eat it.

Basically it comes down to this with food choices - if it was created in a laboratory, and not by My Dad, your body doesn't know what to do with it, and the results will not be favorable. It may take days, weeks, or years to see those results, but you will see them. And in many cases, by the time you notice, it may be too late to undo the damage.

[ChiciB1]

123. But What About Truvia, It's Make From Dried Stevia Leaves. Isn't That A

"natural" sugar unlike Sweet 'n Low? I use one packet in my one cup of coffee each day. Please don't tell me it too is suspect!

But then, I guess it wouldn't surprise me, very little does anymore! It's ALWAYS something! One can only try to do the best they can and I was told that this was a good alternative. So maybe I'm gullible AGAIN!

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

51. Duly changed the nomenclature in your own parlance, I see.

Orders are orders, I know.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

64. Do you call it cane sugar?

Or do you call it high sucrose cane powder?

[nolabear]

115. Except for the cancer and migraines, and that EVIL taste.

I have to admit I've never personally gotten cancer but the old saccharine studies scared me, and I can get a nasty migraine from aspartame--this in a person who only rarely gets the things. So it's doing something, and that something's bad for me.

And, frankly, yuck.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

133. And the sapping of the precious bodily fluids.

And other imaginary problems.

[mediaman007]

11. High Fructose Corn Syrup is to Corn Sugar as Coal is to Clean Coal

[stuntcat]

138. yah

This is probably fine with people who don't mind leveling rainforests to sweeten their canned sodas, or provide ethanol.
There are hundreds of millions of people expecting more and more sugar in their diets. The only thing that makes sense is for us all to learn to eat less of it.

[Matariki]

12. The problem might be that corn syrup is cheap and in everything.

People have been cooking with corn syrup (Karo for instance) for a long time - long before there was an 'obesity epidemic'. What's different now is that people eat far more packaged food and soft drinks, all of which are heavily sweetened. Corn syrup happened to be cheaper than other types of sugar. If companies that make those things use 'pure cane sugar' or 'agave nectar' or whatever currently sounds healthy, people are still going to have weight problems. My point is that consuming lots of corn syrup is an awful diet, but just changing the type of sugar doesn't address the REAL problem.

[lumpy]

14. You nailed it.

v

[Leftist Agitator]

16. Karo syrup (light) is almost entirely glucose.

HFCS is most commonly 55% fructose, 45% glucose.

Though overconsumption of any sugar will cause obeisty, diabetes and other maladies, it seems that mammals process HFCS differently than they do sucrose.

http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S26/91/22K07/

Mice fed a diet of HFCS solution gained more weight and added more abdominal fat than did mice fed on a calorie-equivalent diet of sucrose solution.

Those corn refiner assholes would have you believe "But, but, but sucrose *is* glucose and fructose! See?! A glucose on that side, a fructose on that side of the molecule!"

What they leave out is that HFCS has a greater than 50/50 proportion of fructose, and than when you ingest sucrose, an enzyme, sucrase, is secreted which breaks the molecule into its consituent parts. Sucrase isn't released when one consumes HFCS. There are other metabolic differences as well, but I can't think of them right off hand.

Suffice it to say that regrdless of what the corn assholes say, HFCS =/= sucrose.

[HuckleB]

36. That's a single, preliminary study that has been receiving a great deal of criticism.

That doesn't add up to much.

[Leftist Agitator]

38. Criticism from who?

The Corn Refiners Association?

Did you even read the fucking thing? Seems like pretty sound science to me!

[HuckleB]

39. From other researchers.

Basically the findings appear to be what most researchers would say are not clinically significant, but the Princeton researchers chose to make the claim anyway. (I've posted some links to those discussions elsewhere at DU, but I'm not in the mood to repeat searches today.)

Until this is replicated with true significance there is not much there.

[rhett o rick]

127. Yes we've been down this road again. And I wasnt convinced by the torturous path

the HFCS supports would have us follow. Help yourself, I say no thanks to HFCS and fluoride in water.

[HuckleB]

41. A couple of critiques.

Is that right? HFCS makes people fat?
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/checkup/2010/03/is_that_right_hcfs_makes_rats.html?wprss=checkup

Is High Fructose Corn Syrup Worse Than Regular Sugar?
http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=19

Again, even if the critics are wrong, the Princeton study is very preliminary, and is one piece of research. It does not eliminate all other research and knowledge. Thus, at this point, it adds a tiny caveat to the discussion at best.

[HuckleB]

35. Yup.

[rhett o rick]

73. Tax payers subsidize corn sugar. That's why it's so cheap. And although Karo has been around along

time, it wasnt used that much, at least in my experience.

[rucognizant]

94. RIght

In the 50's & early 60's I used to use corn syrup ONLY for making christmas candy It didn't go over the roast beef for dinner!
Or in to the soup, chile etc.!

[rhett o rick]

125. My parents only used Karo for canning. Do you put any kind of sugar in chili or soup? nm

[rucognizant]

93. Yes BUT!

Adding corn syrup OR sugar to tomato soup is a recent thing. You can hardly buy any kind soup of any brand ( except the PRICEY health food brands) that is HFCS free. I sometimes drive to CaNADA TO GROCERY SHOP, because Campbell's Toranto, DOES NOT put HFCS in their soups, made there because the Government of Canada has stricter rules than we do!
Only in the past 2 decades or so has that been so heavily used, ! I saw a show on PBS a while back THAT SHOWED the food companies doing focus group experiments, to find the formula that is the most ADDICTIVE!
You shop in a Maine Grocery store & the majority of people are whopping fat, just across the border the Canadians browsing through the most FABULOUS, in store bakery, there are remarkably slender.........the breads DON"T CONTAIN HFCS!
AS for aspertame...it was invented by Searle LAboratories in 19832 or so when DOnald Rumsfeld was the CEO.......Later when he entered politics he GOT IT PASSED THROUGH THE FDA!
I know 2 women, who consume it regularly ( in diet drinks as a "weight control: measure) They are both overweight & horribly unhealthy. I am several years older than they, but I have always rejected DIET SODA as a diet measure.if on a diet I drink water, or sparkling water. I am much more agile & don't have any health issues.
now is that people eat far more packaged food and soft drinks, We used to cook real food from scratch. SOme of us still do!

[Matariki]

124. Yep. That was my point. Sweeteners in processed food.

And processed food and soft drinks as the mainstay of most people's diets == not good.

[Statistical]

158. HFCS just doesn't "happen" to be the cheapest sweetner.

HFCS usage outside the US is very low. The true cost of HFCS is very high compared to other forms of sweetners.

The utterly unrealistic and massive corn subsidy allows HFCS to be sold well below cost and illegaly undercut all other sweetners.
Heavy HFCS usage is limited to the few countries that massively subsidize this wasteful and unhealthy product.

[Moondog]

13. K & R

:kick: :thumbsup:

[Leftist Agitator]

18. Corn Refiner Assholes: "All sugar is the same, the body can't tell the difference.."

Tell that to these mice:

http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S26/91/22K07/


Yeah, you were saying corn assholes?

K&R

[Little Star]

21. k&r

[Catherina]

23. High Fructose Corn Syrup should not be tolerated anywhere. n/t

[Odin2005]

24. The key feature of fructose, metabolically, is that is does NOT tigger the release of...

hormones that signal satiation (fullness), basically, it causes you to over-eat.

This is true of all fructose everywhere, even that in fruit. the differences is that fruit has other stuff in it that will trigger satiation hormones.

[HuckleB]

33. +1

[nenagh]

99. That is exactly what I read as well..

HFCS does NOT trigger the brain to let us know we have eaten enough, ie 'we]re full'...

So we eat more and more because we still feel hungry :(

Of course, that sells more of the product...

[jeff47]

153. *sigh*

As stated in every one of these "HFCS IS THE DEVIL!!!" threads, HFCS is not all fructose. It's about 50% fructose, 50% glucose. What makes it "high fructose" is unaltered corn syrup is 100% glucose.

While fructose alone won't trigger things like insulin, HFCS comes with a bunch of glucose that does.

[CrispyQ]

25. "King Corn" & "Super Size Me"

Everyone should watch these two movies.

[Ichingcarpenter]

26. The Physics on the Towers

Just doesn't work for an Old high school science Teacher

[Skink]

27. I'm off Fructose.

I feel better.

I read every label and look for fructose, more precisedly HFCS, and let lack of it be my guide when I buy. As a result I am eating a much healthier diet. Also I have yet to find it in any kind of beer.:beer:

[Paulie]

29. No mead for you then

Honey contains fructose. :)

[Vickers]

34. If the fermentation process is reasonably efficient, most of the sugars

will be converted to alcohol.

:P

[Odin2005]

66. I thought honey was mostly glucose.

[localroger]

102. Honey is about the same mix as HFCS

If we ate honey in the amounts we are eating corn syrup, it probably wouldn't be very good for us either.

[jeff47]

109. Actually no

Honey is glucose + other flavors.

On the other hand, the parent better not be eating any fruit and most vegetables since they contain fructose.

[jillan]

71. My daughter was having health issues - g/i stuff. The doctor told her to keep a diary of everything

she ate and drank for 1 week. First thing he said was she was getting too much hfcs and since it is not a natural substance, to get off of it, her body didn't know what to do with it.

Sure enough, she is feeling mucho better.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

30. "I wasn't very good with chemistry"

If you were better at chemistry, you'd realize that HFCS is a mixture of glucose and fructose.

And that table sugar is sucrose, which hydrolyzes in the gut to glucose and... wait for it... fructose.

And that the stuff in the jar is syrup, i.e. sugar dissolved in water. If you remove the water, you end up with a crystalline powder, just like the stuff you sprinkle on your shredded wheat in the morning.

[Pisces]

37. Eat it to your hearts content.

[shanti]

53. hey, you go for it, ok?

i'll pass on the HFCS myself :eyes:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

60. Are you going to pass on honey and fruit too?

[Warren DeMontague]

57. I'm sure you'll still be able to find it, if you really want to eat it.

Beyond that, I'm not sure what the problem is.

[felix_numinous]

40. ...

:popcorn:

[DailyGrind51]

42. HFCS is metabolized like fat, not sugar, and stored in fat cells.

[jeff47]

111. Nope

HFCS is metabolized as it's two primary components, glucose and fructose. At least, the parts we care about. There's small quantities of "other stuff", and those quantities are so small as to be irrelevant to this discussion.

The fructose basically goes straight to the bloodstream, where your cells consume it. Inside your cells, enzymes break it down from a 6-carbon sugar into a 3-carbon sugar, and then it enters the famous "Krebs Cycle" which eventually leads to producing ATP, which is your body's real energy source. If the cell happens to be a fat cell, then the energy can be used to make fat.

Glucose first stops by your liver, where a portion of glucose is turned into glycogen. The rest of the glucose goes straight into the bloodstream, where your cells consume it. Enzymes break it down in a similar way as fructose (6-to-3 carbon sugar -> Krebs Cycle -> ATP).

We have this glycogen thing because our brains can only consume glucose. So glycogen is turned back into glucose as needed to keep our brains alive.

The main reason you should have realized that fructose and fat are metabolized differently is that they are radically different compounds. Even if you didn't take enough chemistry to learn what they were like at the molecular level, they're massively different at the macroscopic level. For example, beef fat is not at all crystalline like a sugar. That's an excellent clue that the body will handle fat and fructose differently.

FYI, sucrose (aka table sugar) is a fructose bonded to a glucose. That bond is broken in our stomachs, and the two simple sugars are metabolized independently.

[DailyGrind51]

144. Actually, you are incorrect!

Next time you present techno-babble, at least provide a link for back-up!

"The digestion, absorption, and metabolism of fructose differ from those of glucose. Hepatic metabolism of fructose favors de novo lipogenesis. In addition, unlike glucose, fructose does not stimulate insulin secretion or enhance leptin production..."

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/79/4/537

“With glucose you have a nice negative feedback pathway between glucose consumption, the liver, the pancreas, and the brain to keep us in energy balance,” Dr. Lustig said. With ethanol and fructose, “you see a positive feedback effect between the liver and the brain, promoting continuous consumption and disease.”

Although fructose “is ostensibly a carbohydrate, in fact it is metabolized like fat, just like ethanol is,” he added. “If you give a glucose load to a patient, almost none of it ends up as fat ... whereas if you give a fructose load to a patient, 30% of it ends up as fat.”

http://www.medconnect.com.au/tabid/84/ct1/c334275/Fructose-Is-Metabolized-Like-Fat-Leads-to-Obesity-Expert-Says/Default.aspx

There are many "different compounds" which respond in the same manner, requiring further testing to distinguish them. Any fan of "House" can tell you that!;-)

[jeff47]

149. Science requires understanding the underlying system

Not picking and choosing quotes you think support your position.

"The digestion, absorption, and metabolism of fructose differ from those of glucose."

Yes, because different enzymes start the digestion of fructose and glucose. However, they're both converted into 3-carbon sugars so they can enter the Krebs cycle. This is DU, not Nature, so I'm not going to bother naming each enzyme and giving the complete pathway.

"Hepatic metabolism of fructose favors de novo lipogenesis"

Translation: Because fructose isn't used to form glycogen, ounce-for-ounce it forms more fat...which doesn't contradict what I said.

"Although fructose “is ostensibly a carbohydrate, in fact it is metabolized like fat, just like ethanol is"

I can now safely ignore anything Dr. Lustig says. Ethanol and fructose are digested completely differently. And ethanol is nothing like a fat. Ethanol is a 2-carbon molecule with an OH on the end. Fat is a triglyceride, with 3 very, very long carbon chains attached to a glycerol molecule. Dr. Lustig just said the equivalent of "Water is the same as crude oil, so we don't need to worry about the gulf disaster".

Let me remind you of an old saying: What do you call the guy who graduates last in his class at medical school? "Doctor".

"Any fan of "House" can tell you that!"

Any fan of "House" who thinks that watching the show teaches them about biology is wrong.

[MrScorpio]

151. So, is the consumption of HFCS beneficial or not...

By both it's effect on human metabolism and at the sheer level that it's being consumed?

And if it is beneficial, and not harmful in any way, where is the independently generated evidence?

[jeff47]

154. Both

HFCS hasn't been shown to have any effect on "human metabolism" that is different from sucrose. So the same 'rules' apply to HFCS as sugar: don't eat too much. If you eat too much of any sugar, you are more likely to develop health issues.

"And if it is beneficial, and not harmful in any way, where is the independently generated evidence?"

Perhaps you could identify some evidence that it is harmful? Every article I've been pointed towards did not actually measure HFCS. The person providing it as evidence believed that HFCS and fructose were the same thing. They're not. HFCS is about 50% fructose, 50% glucose. Sucrose (table sugar) is 50% fructose, 50% glucose. Any study showing ill effects of 100% fructose doesn't apply to HFCS, because that 50% glucose has very significant effects on our metabolism.

Unless the study actually uses HFCS, and measures its effects against another disaccaride like sucrose, you aren't measuring the effects of HFCS.

[MrScorpio]

164. It's a bad thing to consume any kind of sugar excessively...

Am I right?

[jeff47]

193. Yep (nt)

[valerief]

43. Yum. And HFCS is made with a genetically modified enzyme!!!!

For example, HFCS 90 is approximately 90 percent fructose and 10 percent glucose and is most commonly used in baked goods. HFCS 55 is most commonly used in soft drinks, and HFCS 42 (42 percent fructose and 58 percent glucose) is most often used in sports drinks. The process for enzymatic conversion of d-glucose to d-fructose was originally developed by U.S. scientists Richard Marshall and Earl Kool in 1957 and subsequently refined by Japanese researchers in the 1970s, before widespread introduction into U.S. food production (Marshall and Kool 1957). This provided major economic advantages for the corn market in the U.S., where the price of sugar is artificially higher than its global price. HFCS is rarely used in Europe and other parts of the world, except for Japan, where its use is increasing.

High-fructose corn syrup is produced by milling corn to corn starch, then further processing the corn starch to yield corn syrup, which is almost pure glucose. Enzymes are then added to change the glucose into fructose. The process is complex and requires numerous enzymatic additions, along with other sugars, in multiple stages to break down the sugar chains and convert them to fructose and glucose. This yields HFCS 90 (90 percent fructose). The other common formulations, noted above, are produced by combining the HFCS with desired proportions of 100 percent glucose corn syrup.

Bray and associates note that the digestion and metabolism of fructose is different from that of glucose, with hepatic metabolism of fructose favoring new lipogenesis. Fructose (unlike glucose) does not enhance leptin production or stimulate insulin secretion, suggesting that dietary fructose may contribute to weight gain.

Cane sugar is essentially pure sucrose, a disaccharide, equally consisting of fructose and glucose. In contrast to fructose, glucose absorption and metabolism is dependent on insulin stimulation to effect the transport mechanism and trigger insulin receptors. Leptin release is stimulated by insulin and is known to inhibit food intake and lessen hunger and gains in body fat.

http://www.sfms.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home&CONTENTID=2296&TEMPLATE=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&SECTION=Article_Archives

[eShirl]

52. every homebrewer knows, the term corn sugar is already taken (dextrose)

we don't want HFCS makers to get to use it, because beginners who follow recipes calling for "corn sugar" will use the wrong one, and end up with cidery-tasting beer. yuck!

[Bluenorthwest]

55. With you on this one, all the way

And I'll add that this HFCS tastes like crap, has a viscosity like hair gel, and makes baked good wad up like paste. Blech. Even if it was nutritionally fine, as an ingredient it sucks in every way.

[Warren DeMontague]

56. You should applaud the HFCS manufacturers for addressing the problem.

Oh, they're not addressing the problem that their product is bad for people- they're addressing the problem that people are starting to FIGURE OUT it's bad for them.

What's more American than slapping a new name on something and pretending it's completely different?

[KittyWampus]

58. like 'monosodium glutamate' became 'autolyzed yeast'.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

63. lol, wut? Where are you people getting this stuff?

Autolyzed yeast is not monosodium glutamate. Autolyzed yeast does indeed have glutamic acid in it. But then again, so does every living thing on earth.

[Odin2005]

65. Uh, isn't most MSG derived from red seaweed?

That is where the Japanese got it for centuries. It isn't dangerous unless you have MSG sensitivity.

[L0oniX]

62. ...and now the fuckers are running pro HFCS tv ads ....argggg

[Oldenuff]

67. Just saw a video yesterday that:

gives an in depth view of what the sugar thing really is all about.Pretty technical..and about an hour long...


Sugar: The bitter truth

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

[MrScorpio]

83. Thank you very much

That was very informative

[jillan]

70. And I saw the first commercial on the teevee saying it was the same...

a young, handsome dad walking thru a cornfield with a little child, holding hands....

:puke:

[City of Mills]

72. Dude, sugar is sugar.

The lady on TV said so. And after she said it, she swung her little girl up into her arms. That means she's a mom, and mom would never steer you wrong, right?

[JVS]

77. Maybe she's not a mom. Maybe she's just some kind of sicko who is molesting that kid.

:scared:

[JerseygirlCT]

75. You know, just the other day

my son was showing me the ingredients on his (impossibly sweet) cereal. "Look mom! No high fructose corn syrup" "Hmmm... " says I. "Corn sugar", he says.

I told I'd bet that was just a new, cleaned up name for the old stuff.

(The cereal was a present from a friend, not something I bought - just BTW)

[rucognizant]

95. UH HUH!

In just 2 short months the Govt. gave me 4.5lb of corn flakes with sugar & corn sugar. ( 30 lb food package for those who income qualify )
Yeh, Uncle Sam whatever happened to oatmeal, wheat flakes..etc??????
IT GAVE ME A STOMACH ACHE WHEN I ATE IT! SO I took myself off the list..............
ANd the canned veggies were CORN & PEAS, very high in sodium.
90% of the corn crop is now GM contaminated due to the pollinization method of corn & the bullying tactics of Monsanto.

[BlueIris]

76. I hate me some corn sugar. HATE. nt

[the redcoat]

79. The trick is in the wording:

"Your body can't tell the difference" references how your body processes it, not how it affects your body. It's like saying you can't tell the difference between milk and orange juice because you drink both.

Of course, plenty of Americans can't comprehend that.

[handmade34]

80. love your righteous rant

the more processed it is the worse it is... HFCS is really nasty stuff

Lustig (Prof. UCSF) claims we are feeding our children (and ourselves) an ingredient that is alcohol without the buzz...

[MrScorpio]

82. Just watched the vid

I'm a believer

[OswegoAtheist]

81. It tastes different to me.

Stuff made with HFCS has a dull, purple taste to it, and the equivalent product made with cane sugar has a sharp, bluish taste.

Oswego "Splenda tastes like copper in all senses of the word" Atheist

[Ken Burch]

87. ...colors have tastes?

n/t.

[iamthebandfanman]

90. lmao, are you tripping while on DU?

lol

also, i can tell the difference too... they are very different...

i hafta admit though, i kinda find pure sugar sodas a bit on the strong and sometimes overwhelming side (depending on the drink).

i do admit tho, i like a good jones soda now and again

[Raschel]

84. I'm sure you're aware that cancer cells use fructose to proliferate.

This was found in a study using pancreatic cancer cells.

BTW, yeah, don't they know we have the internet now?

[Bryn]

85. From what I understand HFCS doesn't break down in your system

thus converting it into fat because it's not natural and is man-made stuff. Sugar cane breaks down and doesn't turn into fat. I use sugar modestly and am fine with it. No HFCS for me at all!

[Codeine]

112. You understand incorrectly.

Your body breaks it down into its sugar components.

[jobycom]

86. You have proven why they should change the name, since there is no more Fructose

in HFCS than in table sugar. HFCS has the exact same combination of glucose and fructose as cane suger. So your body handles HFCS exactly the same way as it handles table sugar.

Your mistake is that you think "high fructose" means that HFCS is higher in fructose than cane sugar. It isn't. The HF just means there is more fructose than in regular corn syrup. That's a common failing, as the other replies in this thread demonstrate.

You are completely correct that Fructose is handled differently by the body than glucose. You are incorrect that HFCS has more Fructose than other sugars.

That's why they want to change the name. Too many people can't get that, and they make the same mistake you just did.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

88. Sweet!

[jobycom]

89. Not to syrupy?

It is a sticky topic.

And you started it. :P

[eShirl]

96. let them find some other name

"corn sugar" is taken

[jobycom]

130. Corn syrup sugar?

I don't care about the name, the point is that the OP and a lot of people think the makers are trying to trick people by changing the name, but this is a rare case of where they are trying to educate people by changing the name.

[MrScorpio]

131. So, the "corn sugar" makers are "educating us"...

By leaving out the fact that the use of HFCS is quite different from the way that cane sugar was used when it was the primary sweetener?

Our diet has changed dramatically over the past 30+ years since the introduction of HFCS.

More processed sugar poison is being inserted into so much of our food, because of how cheap HFCS actually is.

So, when are they going to educate us about that?

[jobycom]

148. It's not. That's the point. I don't know how to make it more clear.

They are just sugar. Sugar sugar sugar. There is no more fructose in HFCS than in cane sugar or beat sugar.

As for the difference in price and the greater use of it, that's a different problem, but it has nothing to do with the name. Heck, naming it "sugar" might make people realize how much suger they are consuming. It might even help.

[Evoman]

91. Um...why would they look the same?

Clearly they are two different sugars. Don't see your point.

How does that make HFCS extra bad for you? Those two chemicals are present in almost all the sugars you eat, and all the fruit you eat. Neither are bad for you, if consumed in moderate amount. The type of sugar you eat is irrelevant....it's the amount you eat that you have to worry about.

As far as I can tell, the only problem with HFCS is that it's cheap. So it's used a lot. Even in foods it's not neccesary, to make it taste sweeter so you will like it more. Our bodies love sugar.
Really if you're not "good at chemistry" then maybe you should make an honest attempt to learn more. And I'm really not trying to sound snarky...biochemistry is interesting stuff, and looking at one picture and assuming you understand things clearly is doing a disservice to the subect matter, and those who study it.

[rucognizant]

97. It's elementary MY Dear Watson

Just go look up the Agricultural/food oriented committees in Congress.House & Senate........Make a list of them. They're the narrow minded ones that bring us all kinds of unacceptable legislation, social constraints etc. The ones who NEED to be term limited tomorrow! ( yesterday?) All the mid western corn growing states are represented by these bastards!

[intaglio]

98. Sugar is complicated

and it is important that people hear about a complicated subject - isomerism.

First, look at the diagram for glucose and specifically at the alpha-OH group. Now imagine it with the alpha-OH upwards and the hydrogen atom downwards. These two formations are optical isomers or more properly enantiomers. The one in your illustration is levo glucose and the one I have described is dextro glucose; ie left and right handed sugars. Seems unimportant doesn't it especially when you find out that different isomers of sugars tend to have the same sweet taste taste? Except that the body does not correctly metabolise right handed foods, indeed it some cases it does not metabolise them at all. Feed a human only right hand isomers of foodstuffs and they will die of starvation (primarily).

Second, what is "high fructose corn syrup"? The term itself sounds kind of natural but it is nothing of the kind. It is actually glucose from corn industrially processed into fructose. The reason for this is that both isomers of glucose do not taste very sweet but both isomers of fructose do taste very sweet, far sweeter than our most favoured sugar (levo) sucrose. Look at the picture of the bottle of syrup it says HFCS-90, what does that mean? It means that 90% of the sugar in that bottle is frutose of one or other isomer (as an aside, the 75% in brackets refers to the amount of sugars against water in the mixture). For the industry HFCS-55 is the primary mix used, notably in soft drinks, whereas HFCS-42 is used by the baking/breakfast cereal industry. Like any industrial process the glucose to fructose conversion does not care which isomer it produces, so in HFCS about half the sweet stuff is unusable by the body.

Ok, so what happens to this unusable dextro fructose in the body? Nobody knows. HFCS is classified as a foodstuff so it has not had to go through any testing for medical implications, it is not hugely poisonous but it is not nourishing (officially). There have been few studies of the effects of HFCS or similar industrial sugars but those that have been done in rats http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S26/91/22K07/">(most recently by Princeton) shows that at the least rats gain weight more rapidly drinking HFCS laced water despite the inability of the body to metabolise dextro sugars. I believe, although I have not searched for the link, that there have also been studies showing rapid onset diabetes in rats and higher than normal levels of mercury in subjects drinking HFCS's.

So far so bad. You probably want to switch to a substitute sweetener like Agave "Nectar" - don't, it is another industrial process, converting inulin from agave to fructose and guess what it too is made up of left- and right-handed fructose.

[relayerbob]

103. Use stevia

[Codeine]

113. Stevia tastes like licorice-flavored ass.

It's just awful.

[The Backlash Cometh]

104. I lost fifteen years of the productive time of my life trying to figure this out for myself.

Kids need to read up on the General Adaption Syndrome. You can go for thirty-five years of your life never noticing that your body is healthy enough to ward off the negative effects of HFCS, then something unexpected may happen in your life, something stressful and traumatic. You don't realize it but a lot more is going to happen to your body than the direct hit from that accident or traumatic event. When your entire body is put under stress, shit happens. Even if you fix the problem that caused the trauma, your body is still in a state of flux. THAT's when it suddenly stops protecting you from the kind of things that you whistled through when you were younger. That's when you realize that your body is not meant to take on all the poisons that they're selling in the US markets. HFCS should be outlawed.

[jeff47]

114. It's quite apparent you weren't that good at chemistry

Those radically different molecules you start your post with? BOTH of them are in HFCS. Unaltered corn syrup is nearly 100% glucose. "High Fructose" means it's about 50% fructose, 50% glucose.

The stuff you sprinkle on your shredded wheat is sucrose, aka table sugar. It's a glucose bonded to a fructose. Which means it's 50% fructose, 50% glucose.

There isn't an inherent problem with HFCS. The problem is total calories consumed. Doesn't matter if the calories come from HFCS or sucrose or fat or protein. Eat too many calories, you get fat.

[intaglio]

137. Neither are you good at chemistry, regarding enantiomers

1) The sugar you put on your breakfast cereal is levo sucrose.

2) The sugar the manufacturer puts in your breakfast cereal is HFCS usually HFCS-42 which is 58% levo glucose and dextro glucose with 42% levo fructose and dextro fructose as separate compounds.

3) The chemical process that produces HFCS does not differentiate between levo and dextro rotated sugars.

4) Conventional wisdom is that dextro rotated sugars are nutritionally neutral, ie not usually metabolised.

5) Recent research, eg the Princeton study I linked to earlier, suggests that that is not the case and that HFCS encourages the deposition of fat to a greater extent that levo fructose on it's own.

6) Other research has implicated HFCS, a mixture of enantiomers, in diabetes but not the fructose you get from fresh fruit which is entirely levo fructose.

[jeff47]

152. *sigh*

"1) The sugar you put on your breakfast cereal is levo sucrose."

Um...no. As a disaccharide, it doesn't make any sense to call sucrose "levo". There's 2 molecules involved, a fructose and a glucose. Theoretically, the fructose or glucose can be either isomer. But you can't have a "right-hand" nor a "left-hand" disaccharide. ("right-hand" and "left-hand" being where the levo and dextro names come from)

In sucrose produced by plants, both the fructose and the glucose molecules will be "left-hand" or levo versions.

"2) The sugar the manufacturer puts in your breakfast cereal is HFCS usually HFCS-42 which is 58% levo glucose and dextro glucose with 42% levo fructose and dextro fructose as separate compounds."

Nope. Since the glucose comes from the unmodified corn syrup, it's the same isomer. The fructose comes as both isomers, since it's created artificially from glucose. However, the glucose part of the mixture comes straight from the plant.

"4) Conventional wisdom is that dextro rotated sugars are nutritionally neutral, ie not usually metabolised."

Your summary of conventional wisdom is wrong. See: Lactose. Lactose is a double-sugar, much like sucrose. It's made from glucose and galactose. Unlike sucrose, the glucose molecule can be either isomer and both forms are metabolized (in people who aren't lactose intolerant).

"5) Recent research, eg the Princeton study I linked to earlier, suggests that that is not the case and that HFCS encourages the deposition of fat to a greater extent that levo fructose on it's own."

Someone else linked the critiques to your study. I won't bother rehashing them here.

"6) Other research has implicated HFCS, a mixture of enantiomers, in diabetes but not the fructose you get from fresh fruit which is entirely levo fructose."

I've seen several people post "other research" making such a claim. The papers they cite make no such claim. The university's PR flacks and the popular press coverage of their papers make that claim. The experiments were not designed to make such a claim.

For example, in one study they took already diabetic people and fed them 100% fructose or 100% glucose, and noted there was a significant difference in insulin response. Since no patient was fed HFCS or sucrose, that experiment is useless in comparing HFCS and sucrose. Nor can that experiment be used in relation to diabetes, since there was no non-diabetic control group.

Once again: if you eat too many calories, from any source, you will get fat and have the associated problems. HFCS isn't the problem, it's the total quantity of sugar consumed. Swap the HFCS for sucrose, and you'll get the same result: overweight diabetics.

[intaglio]

156. Very sigh

First; sucrose from plants is optically active hence it is properly termed levo. Some chemically produced sucrose is optically neutral, being a mixture of paired isomers with opposing optical characteristics whilst some artificial sucrose is optically active either levo or dextro.

Second; unfortunately for your simple tale of origins, the HFCS is produced according to normal reaction dynamics hence some of the glucose is invert after the process. Sorry I oversimplified, are you?

Third; nice to see a HFCS apologist agree with something regarding the dubious benefits of HFCS

Regarding my 4th point; I missed that one, so let me amend it - The Corn Refiners Association assures people that dextro fructose is nutritionally neutral.

Fifth; yep, there are critiques of the Princeton Study because this is science we are talking about but is was peer reviewed and published. Perhaps it would be revealing to find the sources of funding for those most noisily critiquing the Princeton Study post publication.

Sixth; other research, try http://www.diabeteshealth.com/read/2008/08/20/4274/the-dangers-of-high-fructose-corn-syrup/">Diabetes Health for an overview, then submit the Yale Study they highlight to your withering apologetics (you'll find it in Cell Metabolism 2009 though an overview can be found on http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090303123802.htm">Science Daily), perhaps the Rutgers study (American Chemical Society 2007, August 23. Soda Warning? High-fructose Corn Syrup) is worthy of your vitriol.

I know the Corn Refiners Association is sensitive to the threat to it's profits moral rectitude but you really must stop accepting everything they hand out as gospel, rewarding as that can be.

[jeff47]

208. Once again, you're wrong.

You're the perfect example of someone who's read one book and thinks you're an expert.

"First; sucrose from plants is optically active hence it is properly termed levo"

No. Levo and dextro come from "left-handed" and "right-handed" orientation of the relevant molecules. When placed in a standard orientation, a functional group is either on the left or right side depending on which isomer you're looking at. Scientists realized this is an insane naming convention, so the modern way to refer is alpha and beta (alpha glucose and beta glucose, for example. DU can't handle the Greek characters so I'm spelling them out.).

Second, "optically active" is a meaningless term. Shine light on any organic compound, and there will be measurable effects. In fact, that's how we determine what's actually in an unknown organic sample - spectrophotometry.

"the HFCS is produced according to normal reaction dynamics hence some of the glucose is invert after the process."

The reactions to produce HFCS are converting glucose to fructose. You are claiming that they also specifically create glucose from...glucose. Doesn't work that way. They take some of the glucose, turn it into fructose, then mix the new fructose back into the remaining glucose.

"nice to see a HFCS apologist agree with something regarding the dubious benefits of HFCS"

I am no apologist. I hate quacks promoting bad science. First they get people killed. Second, they use panic and fear to enrich themselves. Or have you not noticed that all these "lone warriors" fighting against "the man" have a book or product to sell, or are desperately seeking time on TV?

"The Corn Refiners Association assures people that dextro fructose is nutritionally neutral."

And since there isn't evidence to the contrary, the problem is?

"yep, there are critiques of the Princeton Study because this is science we are talking about but is was peer reviewed and published. Perhaps it would be revealing to find the sources of funding for those most noisily critiquing the Princeton Study post publication."

Or perhaps we could understand something about statistics and the concept of 'statistically significant'.

"try Diabetes Health for an overview"

You have to be kidding me. You claim as scientific proof an article who's goal is to teach people that HFCS is sugar. As for the "Yale Study", that used 100% fructose. Fructose is not HFCS. The ~50% glucose in HFCS means your body handles it differently than 100% fructose.

As for the Rutgers study, that relies on the belief that "Reactive Carbonyls" are dangerous. This hasn't been proven. It's a little like the claim that "antioxidants" can protect us from "free radicals". Works in a test tube containing only 3 to 5 ingredients. But you are not a test tube, and you are made up of far more ingredients.

More to the point, all sugars contain "reactive carbonyls". A carbonyl group is part of what makes a sugar a sugar. Which means glucose, sucrose, fructose, lactose and HFCS would all be equally dangerous. Don't you think it would be extremely odd for us to evolve so that we make highly toxic milk to nurse our young? (Human milk has lots of lactose - far more than cow or goat milk).

"I know the Corn Refiners Association is sensitive to the threat to it's profits moral rectitude but you really must stop accepting everything they hand out as gospel, rewarding as that can be."

I know that thinking you're "sticking it to the man" makes you feel good. And that with all the crap going on in the world, having explicit "bad guys" is comforting. But reality isn't about comfort, nor about feeling good.

Fact is I have nothing to do with corn nor agriculture. If you're looking for evil affiliation, I'm with the defense-industrial complex.

[earth mom]

119. Thanks for posting the truth!

:thumbsup:

:applause:

[woo me with science]

172. You forgot to capitalize "Truth." nt

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

120. "Doesn't look like the stuff that I sprinkle on my shredded wheat to me."

that's because you sprinkle "sucrose" (aka: granulated sugar) on your shredded wheat. You would have to look at the sucrose AFTER you body breaks it down into fructose and glucose to see it looking like it does in that glass jar.

[MrScorpio]

132. Actually, I sprinkle raisins and a little bit of honey on my shredded wheat

Although white sugar and HFCS is technically the same, neither on goes on my cereal.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

135. Except now you've got the problem...

of honey and HFCS being the same.

[MrScorpio]

136. Well, at least the honey producers never tried to lie to us, like the corn refiners are

http://www.cspinet.org/new/200806231.html

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

142. So are you saying that honey producers...

should change the name to "high fructose bee syrup?"

[MrScorpio]

143. Nope...

But, you are!

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

145. Actually, I'm fine with both honey and corn sugar.

They're essentially the same product. I don't freak out over HFCS, or corn sugar, because I'm superstitious and scientifically illiterate.

[MrScorpio]

146. I guess that you don't worry about increased levels of diabetes and obesity in the population either

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

162. Not really.

But even if I was, that's caused by an increased consumption of sugar in general, not HFCS in particular.

[MrScorpio]

165. So, you concede that it's a bad thing to consume any kind of sugar excessively

Right?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

168. Duh.

[MrScorpio]

170. And it's a fact that HFCS is the most popular sweetener in America

Accounting for 55% percent of the market with its use not only in sodas, but also in sports drinks, baked goods, cookies, jams and jellies, ketchup, pasta sauce, salad dressing, bread, condiments and many others, up to the point where every American is consuming over sixty pounds of this stuff a year, right?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

171. And if it were cane sugar, it wouldn't make a bit of difference.

If it were cane sugar, you wouldn't be posting pseudoscientific nonsense about it.

[MrScorpio]

173. But you do concede that consumption of over sixty pounds a year

of HFCS is a bad thing, right?

We'll get to the "pseudoscientific nonsense" in a moment.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

174. Consumption of too much sugar is a bad thing, yes.

[MrScorpio]

176. Exactly, we shouldn't be consuming so much HFCS as we are.

I'm glad that you agree with that.

Now, about this "pseudoscientific nonsense", tell me: Why should I take your word over that of a former director of Louisiana State University's Pennington Biomedical Research Center in Baton Rouge, an associate professor of nutrition at the University of California, Davis, who was published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, researchers at the Children's Hospital Boston, the University of Minnesota and The USDA? http://www.sixwise.com/newsletters/05/09/28/high-fructose-corn-syrup-why-the-worlds-most-popular-sweetener-is-enemy-1-to-your-health-and-wais.htm

You, yourself admitted as much, that we shouldn't consuming so much of this this stuff every year.

It would seem to me that, if you were really concerned about the bad effects of total excessive sugar consumption, you would at least step forward and object of the excessive consumption of a sweetener that has over 55% of the market... Even if you disregard the work of so many nutrition professionals.

Why wouldn't you do that?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

177. If you are really concerned about the overconsumption of sugar...

why don't you take issue with the people over-consuming sugar, instead of making up shit about sugar?

[MrScorpio]

178. Well, I do object to it, no doubt about that...

I also object to the way that HFCS has been surreptitiously inserted into so much of our food.

I also object to the way that our diets have been altered over the last thirty years to accommodate the increased consumption of sugar, to include HFCS, which has over 55% of market share.

I also object to the way that the corn refiners are conflating the issue with their deceptive campaigns.

I also object to the way that market share is the only regard to an industry when it's shown that their product has an overall negative effect on the nation's health.

I also object to the campaign of anti-science that I'm even seeing here on DU.


For some reason, you feel bound to remove context out of your defense of HFCS, but it's not like can't be seen.

Really, why do you feel so bound to defend HFCS, HiFructosePronSyrup?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

179. "I object to the campaign of anti-science I'm seeing here on DU."

Mr. Scorpio, what you're posting is anti-science.

And when you get called out on it, you keep moving the goal posts.

"Really, why do you feel so bound to defend HFCS, HiFructosePronSyrup?"

Why do you feel the need to be so intellectually dishonest?

[MrScorpio]

180. What "anti-science" am I posting?

All sugar is bad?

Too much sugar is bad for you?

And there is scientific evidence that HFCS affects the body worse than just plain old Glucose?

I've been saying that since my OP, and you agree with two out of three.

So tell me, where am I being intellectually dishonest?

Oh... I know, the part where I NOT believing the Corn Refiner's obvious bullshit, right?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

181. Well, there's your whole OP.

Already debunked that shit.

Then there's the whole "fructose is metabolized just like alcohol" nonsense.

Here's alcohol:


Here's a small portion of sugar metabolism



Note: complete and utter differences.

[MrScorpio]

182. Where is the evidence that that isn't true?

Other than your word, I haven't seen it.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

183. Are you kidding me? You just make this shit up.

In your OP, you claimed you don't know shit about chemistry.

And you've demonstrated that remarkably well.

[MrScorpio]

185. I'm saying that I'm deferring to the experts

The people who DO know about this shit.

Where are YOUR experts.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

186. You're not deferring to any experts.

[MrScorpio]

188. So, you're saying...

That I NOT deferring to a former director of Louisiana State University's Pennington Biomedical Research Center in Baton Rouge, an associate professor of nutrition at the University of California, Davis who was published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, researchers at the Children's Hospital Boston, the University of Minnesota and The USDA?

Those guys look like experts to me.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

189. I'm saying that's a crutch you fell back on when you couldn't defend your anti-science crap.

And decided to move the goal posts.

Also, it's an argument from authority.

[MrScorpio]

190. What's the difference between what I said in my OP and what I'm saying now?

I said that all sugar is bad. Check.

I also said that some are worse than others. Check.

I pointed out that glucose is NOT fructose. Check.

And I object to the way that the corn refiners are using a public relations campaign to conflate the issue of too much sugar consumption in order to protect their precious 55% of market share. Check.

Tell me where I'm wrong and where is your evidence?

[LanternWaste]

161. I imagine if honey gets re-branded by Madison Avenue...

I imagine if honey gets re-branded by Madison Avenue like HFPS was recently, it would be shock to many people

[Yeshuah Ben Joseph]

187. But what would they call it?

Would "Bee Sugar" really work as a brand name?

[bliss_eternal]

121. Just saw one of the ads...

...on tv. I find them dishonest, and annoying.

[MrScorpio]

128. Clarifications:

AS I mentioned in the OP, I know that processed high fructose and sucrose sugars are practically the same, they're both bad for us. But, in the interim I took some time to watch a video posted by Oldenuff. It was very eye opening indeed.

That informative video, which is a presentation by Dr. Robert H. Lustig, confirmed the fact that others in this thread have noted that the two are the same.

However, he also presented evidence as to why HFCS presents such danger to our diet. Now, although the mere chemistry issue is much more complicated, I confess, there are other factors about this HFCS issue that still makes it an extremely problematic ingredient in our foods.

A few points that he made: What we should be consuming is glucose vs. sucrose/fructose, as the body metabolizes sucrose/fructose as it would a toxin (they are), but not the same for glucose.

Next, the level of processed sugar toxicity has been heightened over the last 35 years; we are consuming much more of the stuff in more ways than ever before. We're consuming it at an earlier age and most of all, we're consuming it as a "replacement" of fat and without the benefit of natural fiber. Yes, I agree, the same applies to cane sugar! For example, the Doctor noted that cane field workers would chew on sugar cane all day long and still, they would be better off health wise than the sugar execs who ran the companies.

And the biggest problem with HFCS is that it's so freaking cheap. Which was part of the political factors are responsible for the dangerous impact that it has on our diet.

So, absolutely yes. It's all bad! Please check out this video for yourself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

Now, an anecdote: Between 1994 and 1998, I was living in Europe. For the most part, I had taken most HFCS out of my diet. I stopped drinking American sodas and most of my processed foods were either German and Dutch in origin: their sodas, breads, pastries, cookies, cereals and just about everything that you'd see infused with HFCS in this country didn't have it over there. The thing that I noticed was that, although I ate a lot of that stuff, I didn't suffer problems with weight gain and other health problems.

During that time, I also retrained my palate, which I didn't quite understand until I got back to the states, because when I did get back I realized that EVERYTHING MADE IN THIS COUNTRY WAS JUST TOO FUCKING SWEET. We're using too much of the stuff. Much more of it today than we did when the country used sucrose alone as a primary sweetener. It's not just the bad chemistry, it's more of the same bad chemistry and it's killing us.

My objection to the renaming of HFCS to "corn sugar" has to do with the suspicion that I have that the corn refiners know full well that they're pushing this highly concentrated toxin in so much of our foods and more and more people are objecting to it... Which, it could cause a restriction in its usage, would cut into their bottom line. Thus, they're conflating the issue by disregarding all the of problems that HFCS causes through its chemical make up, high rate of use and the change in our diets with the elimination of essential fats and fiber. "It's all the same"... Sure, but again, they leave out the fact that it's ALL BAD and they're giving much more of that bad stuff to us than ever before.

Now, I have a confession to make. I gave you all the impression that I sprinkle cane sugar on my shredded wheat. The truth is that I do not use cane sugar on my shredded wheat and I apologize for giving you all that false impression.

The fact is is that I actually sprinkle raisins and a little bit of honey on my shredded wheat. Much better, indeed.

Now although, it's not white sugar and that white sugar is practically they same as HFCS, my raisins and a little bit of honey still doesn't look like that HFCS shit.

[stuntcat]

141. kickety

:kick: everyone should learn a hellova lot more about where all their food comes from. It's sad but the cheaper it is, the worse it is for you.. it should be the opposite way around.

I still use raw cane sugar, turbinado, every day in tea and coffee, and stevia. I'm growing stevia now though, hopefully I'll have enough to harvest next year :headbang:

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

147. "It's sad but the cheaper it is, the worse it is for you.. it should be the opposite way around."

The laws of Economics, limited supply, and utility dictate otherwise. The better option is always more expensive... why? Plain and simply, an object that offers more utility (is better) is worth more.

If the better choice is thoroughly more preferable and more affordable... a market would not exist for the more expensive object and it would cease to serve a purpose. Therefore it would become extinct in a supply/demand market.

[jeff47]

155. The problem with videos on the Internet

Is that any quack can post them.

"What we should be consuming is glucose vs. sucrose/fructose, as the body metabolizes sucrose/fructose as it would a toxin (they are), but not the same for glucose."

He's wrong.

Sucrose is a fructose bound to a glucose via an oxygen molecule. Our bodies have 2 enzymes (1 in the stomach, 1 in the small intestine) to break sucrose into fructose and glucose. Sucrose will never leave your intestines. All of it will be broken into it's two components.

Which brings us to the fructose. If fructose was actually a toxin, why would we have enzymes in every single one of our cells to digest it? Other toxins, like ethanol, are only digested in specialized organs such as the liver.

More to the point, you're going to find fructose in virtually all plants that we eat. We wouldn't have goten very far if we evolved to eat food that was actually toxic to us.

The real way you can tell Dr. Lustig is wrong is that according to his theory, all fruit is highly toxic.

"we are consuming much more of the stuff in more ways than ever before."

Yes...'cause that's the actual problem. HFCS isn't the issue. Total sugar intake is.

"We're consuming it at an earlier age and most of all, we're consuming it as a "replacement" of fat and without the benefit of natural fiber."

First of all, take a look at lactose, AKA milk sugar. It's the major energy source in human milk. We're set up to consume lots of sugar at a very, very young age.

Second, fat is not fiber. Generally speaking, food sources that are high in fat (such as meat) are not high in fiber.

"Yes, I agree, the same applies to cane sugar! For example, the Doctor noted that cane field workers would chew on sugar cane all day long and still, they would be better off health wise than the sugar execs who ran the companies."

First, the doctor did no such study, so claiming the field workers are healthier is bad science.

Second, cane sugar is 100% sucrose. The crystallized stuff you get from the store has had the cellulose and water removed. If you were to chew on raw cane, your saliva will extract the sucrose. You will spit out the cellulose, since you won't be able to break it down by chewing.

"We're using too much of the stuff. Much more of it today than we did when the country used sucrose alone as a primary sweetener."

Yes, but the problem would still exist if we sweetened everything with 100% glucose. We're consuming too much sugar, period. Doesn't matter the source of the sugar.

"My objection to the renaming of HFCS to "corn sugar" has to do with the suspicion that I have that the corn refiners know full well that they're pushing this highly concentrated toxin in so much of our foods and more and more people are objecting to it."

Actually, they're renaming it because any quack can post videos on the Internet. We have a tendency to think the 'lone crusader fighting big _____' is telling us the truth. That's how it works in movies, but it's not reality.

In reality, scientists would love to prove HFCS is dangerous. If you're a university professor, your job is to get famous enough to pull in lots of grant money. Being 'the one that proved HFCS is deadly' would be fantastic for your career. "Big Corn" isn't a good source of funding for nutrition research, so they're not going to have the leverage to stop such research.

"my raisins"

...which contain high levels of fructose

"and a little bit of honey"

...which is almost 100% glucose.

"still doesn't look like that HFCS shit."

Only because you haven't removed the bee vomit compounds from the honey and the cellulose from the raisins.

The "controversy" over HFCS is an attempt to escape blame for our poor eating habits. If "big corn" is "poisoning" us, we don't have to take responsibility for drinking a 12-pack of Coke every day.

We are not forced to drink sugary sodas, nor eat highly processed food. To those worried about HFCS, just take control of your diet. Learn to cook so you have an idea what's going into your food. Stop popping some random processed crap in the microwave every meal and you'll not only feel better, but you'll be healthier.

[intaglio]

157. Oh dear, Jeff, It seems you are a bigger apologist than I thought

Could you please identify if you are beholden to a particular part of the corn refining industry?

My counter to your response is posted earlier.

Nice cherry picking.

[jeff47]

159. What cherry picking?

Please identify the part I ignored.

I'm not associated with corn or agriculture at all. I just really hate quacks doing bad science. They tend to kill people. See: Antivax movement.

[joshcryer]

167. "The "controversy" over HFCS is an attempt to escape blame for our poor eating habits."

Bingo. "I'm a fat slob because of HFCS!!!!!!!!!!!"

[Scout]

195. any quack or otherwise just plain arrogant jerk can post stuff like the following, too:

The "controversy" over HFCS is an attempt to escape blame for our poor eating habits. If "big corn" is "poisoning" us, we don't have to take responsibility for drinking a 12-pack of Coke every day.

We are not forced to drink sugary sodas, nor eat highly processed food. To those worried about HFCS, just take control of your diet. Learn to cook so you have an idea what's going into your food. Stop popping some random processed crap in the microwave every meal and you'll not only feel better, but you'll be healthier.

:eyes:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

197. Which part of that do you disagree with?

And why?

[Scout]

198. the bullshit about a 12-pack of coke a day....

and other ignorant and baseless broad-brush generalizations about those who are overweight.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

199. So you don't think consuming too much sugar causes obesity?

[Scout]

200. so, you're assuming that everyone who is overweight eats as indicated

in the post i was replying to, before you had to stick your 2 cents in?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

201. Just about everyone.

You're sort of proving his point by objecting to it.

[Scout]

202. so you are saying that everyone who is overweight drinks a 12 pack of soda a day

and just heats up crap mindlessly in the microwave?

:rofl:

and my objecting proves his point? HA, what a fucking load of bullshit! so let's see, usually "silence means consent/agreement" so if i'm silent he must be right, and if i protest he must be right? nice how that fantasy works out for you!

so it would be fair to say, then, that when YOU are objecting to people's complaints and problems with HFCS that you are proving their points, right?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

203. 12 pack of soda, box of ding dongs, a cheesecake...

Whatever they're eating, it's too much.

"so if i'm silent he must be right, and if i protest he must be right?"

He's right no matter what you do. Why would your actions change the legitimacy of his statements?

[Scout]

204. there's more of those ignorant assumptions....

he's not right, because that is not how most overweight people eat.

but you keep on fooling yourselves, in your arrogance and smug bullshit.

i was speaking figuratively, i guess that's too difficult for you to figure out ... you know, the saying "silence means assent" ... if one doesn't reply to falsehood, one is assumed to agree with it ... yet YOU were trying to make the claim that because i did reply to falsehood, and not remain silent, i.e. objected, that proved his point.

he's wrong whether i disagree or agree.

[jeff47]

207. "i was speaking figuratively, i guess that's too difficult for you to figure out"

Ditto.

[jeff47]

206. And the problem is....?

Um....what, exactly is wrong with my statement?

Is it that you didn't understand the hyperbole in the 2nd sentence? Or is it that you believe we actually are being forced to consume way too much sugar? I seem to have missed the sessions when they tied me down and poured Mt. Dew into my mouth.

[man4allcats]

129. Sugar, shmooger ...

Forget About it!

Or not:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fructose

Probably best just to follow that old maxim:

"All Things In Moderation"

Paraphrase of a sign on the office door of one of my old professors from back in the day -

Here lies Dan Dangerous

Smoked.
Drank.
Cursed.
Chased women.
Died.

Here lies Paul Puritan

Never smoked.
Never drank.
Never cursed.
Never chased women.
Died anyway.

[EnviroBat]

160. HFCS Is metabolised in the liver just like booze is.

Without the intoxicating effects. It destroys the liver in much the same way scotch and vodka does. It is far more damaging than regular old cane sugar. The commercials extolling the virtues of HFCS don't mention this little tid-bit at all.

END OF STORY

[MrScorpio]

166. Bingo! nt

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

169. It's oxidized to acetaldehyde and then acetic acid?

But seriously, where are you people getting this shit?

[jeff47]

194. Except it isn't.

Almost every cell in your body can metabolize fructose (brain can't). Every cell in your body can metabolize glucose. HFCS is glucose + fructose. Ergo, HFCS is metabolized by every cell in your body.

Your liver needs energy too. It eats fructose and glucose (and protein and fat).

[EnviroBat]

196. Read the section regarding non-alcoholic fatty liver disease.

http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2008/dec2008_Metabolic-Dangers-of-High-Fructose-Corn-Syrup_01.htm

[jeff47]

205. Provide a link from somewhere that doesn't back holistic medicine, and it'll be worth my time. (NT)