High fructose corn syrup... er, I mean "Cornsugar."

[state 08]

Relevant:

This is what corn sugar does to girls: http://i.imgur.com/H9btg.jpg

(stolen from reddit: http://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/decwo/i_blame_corn_sugar/)

 

[Gibsons]

lol

first off, you're contradicting yourself. you just said that the 12 hr sucrose was shown to yield lower weight gain than 12 hr hfcs. basically, you're saying that even when controlled, there was more weight gain in hfcs.

I never said there was a significant difference, did I? Simple mistake on my part getting the words turned around, but it doesn't matter. The point still stands - the study shows no significant long term difference either way.

Did you look at the data?

secondly, read the study. the study finds that hfcs does cause more weight gain and health issues.

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

i never said anything to the contrary.

Of course I read the paper eits. Why did you link a pop newsfeature instead? Try this link:
ScienceDirect You might have to pay to access it, I'm not sure.

They did three experiments in the paper.
The first was short term (2 months), which you've said isn't relevant. I disagree somewhat, but that's beside the point.

The second was long term (6 months), comparing HFCS plus chow to chow alone. No sucrose controls were done in this experiment. The rats with HFCS access gained more weight.

The third was long term (7 months), and did have a sucrose control. The overall weight data from that experiment is shown in the chart I linked above. Here's the other data from that experiment. It's measuring the weight of fat pads after 7 months, to help distinguish weight gain from fat vs simple growth. What conclusions do you draw from this?

 

[eits]

I never said there was a significant difference, did I? Simple mistake on my part getting the words turned around, but it doesn't matter. The point still stands - the study shows no significant long term difference either way.

Did you look at the data?



Of course I read the paper eits. Why did you link a pop newsfeature instead? Try this link:
ScienceDirect You might have to pay to access it, I'm not sure.

They did three experiments in the paper.
The first was short term (2 months), which you've said isn't relevant. I disagree somewhat, but that's beside the point.

The second was long term (6 months), comparing HFCS plus chow to chow alone. No sucrose controls were done in this experiment. The rats with HFCS access gained more weight.

The third was long term (7 months), and did have a sucrose control. The overall weight data from that experiment is shown in the chart I linked above. Here's the other data from that experiment. It's measuring the weight of fat pads after 7 months, to help distinguish weight gain from fat vs simple growth. What conclusions do you draw from this?

i will respond when i get back from work.

 

[sao123]

HFCS vs sugar is going to be very similar in the calories because both have sucrose and fructose. The problem is that 1: sugars should not be consumed in anywhere near the quantity we consume them in and 2: a calorie from sugar (be it sucrose/fructose or HFCS/cane sugar) is handled by the body different than say a calorie from salmon.

That's the problem. The % of a sucrose/fructose calorie that gets turned into fat is much higher than that of glucose for example.

do you even realize the misinformation garbage you just spouted?

Sucrose = fructose + glucose.

All sugar in the body is converted INTO glucose, as glucose is the only sugar which can be stored in fat. In fact what you said is so far off...Pure fructose will not even elicit an insulin response. Since they are both a C6H12O6 molecule, the conversion is 1 to 1. So fat from sucrose/glucose/fructose is the same.

Calories from salmon are not fructose/glucose/or sucrose. Calorise from salmon are proteins, no sugars.


For all those complaining about how bad 55% HCFS is over sucrose... small Intestine sugar absorbtion is peak at 50/50 F-G ratio because fructose absorbtion is a glocose-dependent cotransport known as GLUT2. GLUT2 is a high volume transport. In contrast, GLUT5 which is the small intestine absorption fructose transport is a low volume transport which becomes saturated easily. Most of the extra fructose you are complaining about is actually discarded.

 

[Beev]

Relevant:

This is what corn sugar does to girls: http://i.imgur.com/H9btg.jpg

(stolen from reddit: http://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/decwo/i_blame_corn_sugar/)

That's just fucking terrible. I hope those girls hate themselves so much.

 

[mrCide]

I use Splenda.

 

[VinylxScratches]

I drink one or two Arizona Rx Energy drinks a day and I haven't gained weight.

 

[Gibsons]

i will respond when i get back from work.

 

[eits]

i apologize. i forgot to come back to the thread... it wasn't bolded in my subscriptions section... one of those "out of sight, out of mind" things...


http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...WOK4XUGMQ&sig2=1C_GsupuazwY_FkrVWrrWw&cad=rja

you're misinterpreting the graphs.

read the results section for a better understanding... also, read the discussion section. maybe then you'll understand how it's practically impossible for hfcs and sucrose to yield identical physiological results. finally, read the conclusion.

 

[Gibsons]

i apologize. i forgot to come back to the thread... it wasn't bolded in my subscriptions section... one of those "out of sight, out of mind" things...


http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...WOK4XUGMQ&sig2=1C_GsupuazwY_FkrVWrrWw&cad=rja

you're misinterpreting the graphs.

read the results section for a better understanding... also, read the discussion section. maybe then you'll understand how it's practically impossible for hfcs and sucrose to yield identical physiological results. finally, read the conclusion.

I've read the whole paper eits, I read it months ago.

The discussion has a mistake in it; the Curry '89 reference never looked at or used hfcs, or sucrose for that matter. Maybe they meant to say fructose, I don't know. The Curry paper was also using perfused pancreases, so it doesn't have anything direct to say about satiety.

The conclusion simply doesn't mention sucrose, so I don't know where you're going with that.

If I'm misinterpreting any graph, be very specific and point out which data points on which graph.

They have one set of data (short term, which you've indicated we should ignore) which shows a difference between sucrose and HFCS.

They have another set of data (long term, which you've indicated we should pay attention to) which demonstrates no significant difference.

How do you pick one set of data over the other? Why did you suddenly decide short term data was valid? Or in this case more valid than the long term data?