absorption rates are irrelevant, the fact that it's in EVERYTHING, and i do mean EVERYTHING - is why it's bad for you. Imagine taking a spoonful of table sugar every time you ate something.
Links aren't hard to find from peer reviewed scientific articles for everything I said. It isn't P&N, so I didn't delve into an array of links for everything. I could post dozens of links, but I'll just start with a couple of recent studies:Link?
Importantly, fructose and glucose metabolism are quite different; in comparison with glucose, fructose induces thiamine-dependent transketolase flux and is preferentially metabolized via the nonoxidative pentose phosphate pathway to synthesize nucleic acids and increase uric acid production. These findings show that cancer cells can readily metabolize fructose to increase proliferation.
There you have increased risk for cancer, heart disease, and diabetes. Need I continue?consumption increases plasma concentrations of fasting sdLDL, oxidized LDL, and postprandial RLP-C and RLP-TG in older, overweight/obese men and women, whereas glucose consumption does not. These changes may be associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease
Consumption of fructose at 25% of energy requirements with an ad libitum diet decreased glucose tolerance and insulin sensitivity in older overweight/obese adults compared with glucose consumption.
absorption rates are irrelevant, the fact that it's in EVERYTHING, and i do mean EVERYTHING - is why it's bad for you. Imagine taking a spoonful of table sugar every time you ate something.
I just ate a whole bag of Brachs Candy Corn. Delicious. I don't give a shit what is in it or what you call it.
I love candy corn.
They should just call it "liquid candy corn" ....
This. If anything they might add more, because imported sugar is dirt cheap, or at least it would be if we got rid of the ridiculous tariffs on it that favor our domestic farmers and HFCS. Pretty sure I've read that if the tariffs were gone, importing cane sugar would be cheaper than domestically-produced HFCS.If HFCS was banned the companies would probably do just that... (put sugar in everything...)
If people would spend 5 extra minutes at the grocery store looking whats actually in the products they buy and choosing wisely about what they stuff in their mouth this would not be an issue.
Links aren't hard to find from peer reviewed scientific articles for everything I said. It isn't P&N, so I didn't delve into an array of links for everything. I could post dozens of links, but I'll just start with a couple of recent studies:
http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/70/15/6368.abstract
http://www.jci.org/articles/view/37385
There you have increased risk for cancer, heart disease, and diabetes. Need I continue?
If it wasn't then sugar would be used instead, let me guess you would start bitching about sugar then?
absorption rates are irrelevant, the fact that it's in EVERYTHING, and i do mean EVERYTHING - is why it's bad for you. Imagine taking a spoonful of table sugar every time you ate something.
Ahh, the irrational fear of High Fructose Corn Syrup.
Read up (along with the references):
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4157
This. If anything they might add more, because imported sugar is dirt cheap, or at least it would be if we got rid of the ridiculous tariffs on it that favor our domestic farmers and HFCS. Pretty sure I've read that if the tariffs were gone, importing cane sugar would be cheaper than domestically-produced HFCS.
Have never understood the irrational fear of HFCS. Chemically it may be slightly worse for you than cane sugar, but let's face it, the real problem is people eating too much, especially sugar-rich products like candy and soda. I can't even stand non-diet soda, for example, it's sickeningly sweet. That said, I'm not a fan at all of the tariffs on cane sugar and all the other handouts to our domestic farming industry. We should just get rid of them and level the playing field.
On topic, I'm going to go SAT-style here-
Corn Syrup : Corn Sugar :: Prunes : Dried Plums
You can spend the money on rebranding your product if you'd like, but understand that it's pretty much a waste as people know what your shit really is.
Ahh, the irrational fear of High Fructose Corn Syrup.
Read up (along with the references):
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4157
Tumor cells fed both glucose and fructose used the two sugars in two different ways, the team at the University of California Los Angeles found.
They said their finding, published in the journal Cancer Research, may help explain other studies that have linked fructose intake with pancreatic cancer, one of the deadliest cancer types.
"These findings show that cancer cells can readily metabolize fructose to increase proliferation," Dr. Anthony Heaney of UCLA's Jonsson Cancer Center and colleagues wrote.
"They have major significance for cancer patients given dietary refined fructose consumption, and indicate that efforts to reduce refined fructose intake or inhibit fructose-mediated actions may disrupt cancer growth."
I agree, but let's be honest, the average person really doesn't know jackshit about HFCS. They just hear/read that its so bad.
I'm a bit mixed on this, as I think them changing it to corn sugar is actually more informative for the average consumer, but its kinda pathetic to try to whitewash it, although its not their fault that some people basically vandalized it, so I can't fault them for it either.
What's sad, is, instead of it causing people to actually learn about it, this will just make them look bad and give the anti-HFCS nuts more fodder.
I just ate a whole bag of Brachs Candy Corn. Delicious. I don't give a shit what is in it or what you call it.
You should read up as well
http://www.reuters.com/article/idAFN0210830520100802
HFCS is a new creation in biological terms. The human body has not had access to it through it's entire effective evolution since it's only been around for a handful of generations. I would much prefer to stick to the "real" sugar if I need to sweeten something.
Then again, I would rather eliminate all HFCS from my diet in addition to most sweeteners and artificially processed foods.
Actually, "corn sugar" has traditionally been something else:
http://www.amazon.com/Corn-Sugar-1lb.../dp/B000MBW7IK
Dextrose is something other than HFCS. This alone should kill the renaming attempt.
So they're already broken down facilitating absorption more readily than sucrose. Thanks for clearing that up.
Yeah it's pretty incredible if you look at the EROI for Brazil's cane sugar ethanol program. IIRC some studies suggest it's about 8:1, in that area, whereas the EROI for corn ethanol in the US is maybe just slightly above 1:1. It's a really cool thing they have going down there. Of course we also have tariffs on ethanol imported from Brazil as well, so US consumers can't benefit from their cheap and efficient production. More protectionist BS to help prop up the domestic corn and ag industries, same as with the tariffs on imported sugar.Without the tariffs, it would be cheaper by a large margin to the point where even industries that are heavily focused on HFCS (such as soft drinks) would likely be able to lower costs by retooling. Of course, that assumes no response from the corn industry which would basically have to drop prices, possibly to their cost just so they can prop up demand for corn products as leverage for keeping prices higher elsewhere.
I need to look into what things have happened more recently. A couple of years back, there was some mention that via new trade deals with Mexico, that cane sugar could possibly be let in that way. It was enough to spook the US sugar industry to lobby the government to focus on using their sugar cane for ethanol production (which would give them consistent demand as well as let them keep prices fairly high). It could have pretty big impact, as it'd be a double whammy to the corn industry (they'd lose out on using corn for ethanol production and cane sugar being more competitive price wise).
To top it off, sugar cane is a much better source for making ethanol than corn is anyways. The most recent thing I'd heard is that the government was going to lower (there was actually quite a bit of movement to get rid of it altogether) the ethanol subsidies. I'm not sure what that would end up doing (could actually be good as I assume corn industry is the biggest benefactor, and in a more even market, cane sugar ethanol would almost certainly win out, but other tech, such as bio-cellulosic ethanol production would probably lose out as well).
You should read up as well
http://www.reuters.com/article/idAFN0210830520100802
HFCS is a new creation in biological terms. The human body has not had access to it through it's entire effective evolution since it's only been around for a handful of generations. I would much prefer to stick to the "real" sugar if I need to sweeten something.
Then again, I would rather eliminate all HFCS from my diet in addition to most sweeteners and artificially processed foods.
Links aren't hard to find from peer reviewed scientific articles for everything I said. It isn't P&N, so I didn't delve into an array of links for everything. I could post dozens of links, but I'll just start with a couple of recent studies:
http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/70/15/6368.abstract
http://www.jci.org/articles/view/37385
There you have increased risk for cancer, heart disease, and diabetes. Need I continue?
Yeah it's pretty incredible if you look at the EROI for Brazil's cane sugar ethanol program. IIRC some studies suggest it's about 8:1, in that area, whereas the EROI for corn ethanol in the US is maybe just slightly above 1:1. It's a really cool thing they have going down there. Of course we also have tariffs on ethanol imported from Brazil as well, so US consumers can't benefit from their cheap and efficient production. More protectionist BS to help prop up the domestic corn and ag industries, same as with the tariffs on imported sugar.
You should read up as well
http://www.reuters.com/article/idAFN0210830520100802
HFCS is a new creation in biological terms. The human body has not had access to it through it's entire effective evolution since it's only been around for a handful of generations. I would much prefer to stick to the "real" sugar if I need to sweeten something.
Then again, I would rather eliminate all HFCS from my diet in addition to most sweeteners and artificially processed foods.
per wikipedia sugar cane has between 11 and 16 grams of sucrose per 100g of cane. sweet corn has all of 3.2g sugar (of all kinds) per 100g. and that's from an edible portion so doesn't include stalks and leaves, and probably doesn't include the cob either. cane is nearly 100% usable for sugar, where only a tiny % of the corn plant is. make iowa last in the country to nominate the president instead of first and we wouldn't have this crap.Yeah it's pretty incredible if you look at the EROI for Brazil's cane sugar ethanol program. IIRC some studies suggest it's about 8:1, in that area, whereas the EROI for corn ethanol in the US is maybe just slightly above 1:1. It's a really cool thing they have going down there. Of course we also have tariffs on ethanol imported from Brazil as well, so US consumers can't benefit from their cheap and efficient production. More protectionist BS to help prop up the domestic corn and ag industries, same as with the tariffs on imported sugar.