Carbohydrates come in basic molecules called monosaccharides, or single sugars. The two monosaccharides we're discussing are glucose and fructose. Regular table sugar is a disaccharide of glucose and fructose, which means that the two monosaccharides are chemically bound into a larger, more complex disaccharide molecule called sucrose. That's sugar. HFCS consists of the same two monosaccharides, only they're just mixed in together, the molecules are not bound.
When you consume regular sugar, sucrose, the first thing your digestive system does is break the chemical bond and separate it into glucose and fructose. So once saccharides are in your body, it makes very little difference whether they came in as table sugar or as HFCS.
The fact is that there is huge correlation between HFCS consumption and obesity, and all sorts of obesity related conditions like diabetes and heart disease. Nobody disputes that. The problem arises when people make the common error of mistaking correlation for causation. There's an equally valid correlation between obesity and dirty dishes. The cause of obesity and obesity related diabetes is overeating more calories than you burn. It makes no difference whether you overeat food containing pure cane sugar, food containing HFCS, or organic spinach: Too many calories is too many calories, and you'll become obese and suffer the same obesity related complications no matter what you ate to get you there. Fat is fat.
Originally posted by: chuckywang
If it makes them feel better about themselves, then isn't it worth it? Without getting too philosophical, mental happiness counts for something too. The placebo effect is very real.
Originally posted by: KeithTalent
Originally posted by: iFX
Originally posted by: KeithTalent
I don't think this will have any real impact on me whatsoever.
KT
That fat huh?
Yep, I'm enormous!! :shocked:
KT
Originally posted by: spidey07
Originally posted by: chuckywang
If it makes them feel better about themselves, then isn't it worth it? Without getting too philosophical, mental happiness counts for something too. The placebo effect is very real.
Well that's true. And folks are making a fucking killing off of people's stupidity. It's like monster cable/bose. It makes them feel good for paying so much money for no benefit.
I know this sounds like trolling and a threadjack, but it's the very same principle.
Originally posted by: SandEagle
Originally posted by: spidey07
Originally posted by: chuckywang
If it makes them feel better about themselves, then isn't it worth it? Without getting too philosophical, mental happiness counts for something too. The placebo effect is very real.
Well that's true. And folks are making a fucking killing off of people's stupidity. It's like monster cable/bose. It makes them feel good for paying so much money for no benefit.
I know this sounds like trolling and a threadjack, but it's the very same principle.
every doctor and pediatrician i talked to said the same thing: avoid HFCS. are they stupid? the internet is full of resources on the negative side effects of HFCS. it can produce symptoms similar to hypoglycemia, lead to type II diabetes, obesity, etc.
u want to know why the rest of the world isnt as fat as us? they dont use HFCS, monosodium glutamate (yes, MSG is in pretty much everything you buy), hydrogenated or hydrolyzed crap.
Originally posted by: Schadenfroh
Yay for higher prices. I cannot tell the difference between things made with HFCS and regular beet / cane sugar. As a matter of fact, they are not that much different...
I found this to be a very informative overview of the HFCS debate:
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4157
Carbohydrates come in basic molecules called monosaccharides, or single sugars. The two monosaccharides we're discussing are glucose and fructose. Regular table sugar is a disaccharide of glucose and fructose, which means that the two monosaccharides are chemically bound into a larger, more complex disaccharide molecule called sucrose. That's sugar. HFCS consists of the same two monosaccharides, only they're just mixed in together, the molecules are not bound.
When you consume regular sugar, sucrose, the first thing your digestive system does is break the chemical bond and separate it into glucose and fructose. So once saccharides are in your body, it makes very little difference whether they came in as table sugar or as HFCS.
The fact is that there is huge correlation between HFCS consumption and obesity, and all sorts of obesity related conditions like diabetes and heart disease. Nobody disputes that. The problem arises when people make the common error of mistaking correlation for causation. There's an equally valid correlation between obesity and dirty dishes. The cause of obesity and obesity related diabetes is overeating more calories than you burn. It makes no difference whether you overeat food containing pure cane sugar, food containing HFCS, or organic spinach: Too many calories is too many calories, and you'll become obese and suffer the same obesity related complications no matter what you ate to get you there. Fat is fat.
Originally posted by: zerocool84
Originally posted by: chuckywang
There are no scientific evidence that HFCS is worse for you than sugar. I do think sugar tastes better though, but I have no proof. In fact, I failed a blind taste test of regular coke vs. Mexican coke.
And that's what I said. It's like organic food. People WANT to think it tastes better when it doesn't. It's just their mind making them think it tastes better.
Originally posted by: chuckywang
Originally posted by: Schadenfroh
Yay for higher prices. I cannot tell the difference between things made with HFCS and regular beet / cane sugar. As a matter of fact, they are not that much different...
I found this to be a very informative overview of the HFCS debate:
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4157
Carbohydrates come in basic molecules called monosaccharides, or single sugars. The two monosaccharides we're discussing are glucose and fructose. Regular table sugar is a disaccharide of glucose and fructose, which means that the two monosaccharides are chemically bound into a larger, more complex disaccharide molecule called sucrose. That's sugar. HFCS consists of the same two monosaccharides, only they're just mixed in together, the molecules are not bound.
When you consume regular sugar, sucrose, the first thing your digestive system does is break the chemical bond and separate it into glucose and fructose. So once saccharides are in your body, it makes very little difference whether they came in as table sugar or as HFCS.
The fact is that there is huge correlation between HFCS consumption and obesity, and all sorts of obesity related conditions like diabetes and heart disease. Nobody disputes that. The problem arises when people make the common error of mistaking correlation for causation. There's an equally valid correlation between obesity and dirty dishes. The cause of obesity and obesity related diabetes is overeating more calories than you burn. It makes no difference whether you overeat food containing pure cane sugar, food containing HFCS, or organic spinach: Too many calories is too many calories, and you'll become obese and suffer the same obesity related complications no matter what you ate to get you there. Fat is fat.
It's not just a coincidence that the introduction of HFCS was about the same time the obesity epidemic hit the US. However it's not in the way you guys are thinking. HFCS provided a very cheap substitute for the more expensive cane sugar sweetener. Soon, all food companies started using it in their products. As a result, food became cheaper and portions became larger. It's not that HFCS is more unhealthy for you than sugar, it's the fact that Americans were consuming it in much larger quantities.
Originally posted by: DangerAardvark
Originally posted by: chuckywang
Originally posted by: Schadenfroh
Yay for higher prices. I cannot tell the difference between things made with HFCS and regular beet / cane sugar. As a matter of fact, they are not that much different...
I found this to be a very informative overview of the HFCS debate:
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4157
Carbohydrates come in basic molecules called monosaccharides, or single sugars. The two monosaccharides we're discussing are glucose and fructose. Regular table sugar is a disaccharide of glucose and fructose, which means that the two monosaccharides are chemically bound into a larger, more complex disaccharide molecule called sucrose. That's sugar. HFCS consists of the same two monosaccharides, only they're just mixed in together, the molecules are not bound.
When you consume regular sugar, sucrose, the first thing your digestive system does is break the chemical bond and separate it into glucose and fructose. So once saccharides are in your body, it makes very little difference whether they came in as table sugar or as HFCS.
The fact is that there is huge correlation between HFCS consumption and obesity, and all sorts of obesity related conditions like diabetes and heart disease. Nobody disputes that. The problem arises when people make the common error of mistaking correlation for causation. There's an equally valid correlation between obesity and dirty dishes. The cause of obesity and obesity related diabetes is overeating more calories than you burn. It makes no difference whether you overeat food containing pure cane sugar, food containing HFCS, or organic spinach: Too many calories is too many calories, and you'll become obese and suffer the same obesity related complications no matter what you ate to get you there. Fat is fat.
It's not just a coincidence that the introduction of HFCS was about the same time the obesity epidemic hit the US. However it's not in the way you guys are thinking. HFCS provided a very cheap substitute for the more expensive cane sugar sweetener. Soon, all food companies started using it in their products. As a result, food became cheaper and portions became larger. It's not that HFCS is more unhealthy for you than sugar, it's the fact that Americans were consuming it in much larger quantities.
Which is why these fucking hippies want to make food more expensive? I wish vegetarians would make a dietary exception and eat a dick.
Originally posted by: zerocool84
They're the same people who want to go to all organic food which would be MUCH more expensive and organic food growing takes up much more space to grow the same amount.
Originally posted by: Baked
You can start by switching a portion of field corn farms to sugar cane farms.
Originally posted by: chuckywang
There are no scientific evidence that HFCS is worse for you than sugar. I do think sugar tastes better though, but I have no proof. In fact, I failed a blind taste test of regular coke vs. Mexican coke.
Originally posted by: spidey07
And this is how the lunatic fringe is taking over. Stop them, stop them now. Boycott ANY company that bows to this lunatic fringe of fucktards.
Send a hand written letter to these companies stating you will NOT purchase anything from them ever again because of their lunacy.
Originally posted by: rudder
Originally posted by: chuckywang
There are no scientific evidence that HFCS is worse for you than sugar. I do think sugar tastes better though, but I have no proof. In fact, I failed a blind taste test of regular coke vs. Mexican coke.
http://www.diabeteshealth.com/...h-fructose-corn-syrup/
HFCS is definetely worse for the body that sugar.
Originally posted by: Kelemvor
But I just saw a commercial telling me that it's just fine for me in moderation and is just like sugar. What's going on? The Media, they lie to me!!
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: rudder
Originally posted by: chuckywang
There are no scientific evidence that HFCS is worse for you than sugar. I do think sugar tastes better though, but I have no proof. In fact, I failed a blind taste test of regular coke vs. Mexican coke.
http://www.diabeteshealth.com/...h-fructose-corn-syrup/
HFCS is definetely worse for the body that sugar.
Your reading comprehension sucks. You forget one simple thing: Table sugar is 50% FRUCTOSE, just like HFCS. Both are roughly 50% Fructose and 50% glucose.
You ignorantly latch on to studies done on the effects of "fructose" and apply them only to HFCS because, well, HFCS has the word "fructose" in it.
When, in reality, HFCS and table sugar are metabolized by the body exactly the same because they are the same.
AND, the kicker? The article does NOT make the claim that HFCS is worse than an equal amount of sugar. It says it's as bad as sugar and says that diabetics should avoid it like they do sugar.
So why would you make this claim???
Originally posted by: rudder
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: rudder
Originally posted by: chuckywang
There are no scientific evidence that HFCS is worse for you than sugar. I do think sugar tastes better though, but I have no proof. In fact, I failed a blind taste test of regular coke vs. Mexican coke.
http://www.diabeteshealth.com/...h-fructose-corn-syrup/
HFCS is definetely worse for the body that sugar.
Your reading comprehension sucks. You forget one simple thing: Table sugar is 50% FRUCTOSE, just like HFCS. Both are roughly 50% Fructose and 50% glucose.
You ignorantly latch on to studies done on the effects of "fructose" and apply them only to HFCS because, well, HFCS has the word "fructose" in it.
When, in reality, HFCS and table sugar are metabolized by the body exactly the same because they are the same.
AND, the kicker? The article does NOT make the claim that HFCS is worse than an equal amount of sugar. It says it's as bad as sugar and says that diabetics should avoid it like they do sugar.
So why would you make this claim???
Cause I have threads to make and reply to rather than spending the day googling...
http://www.westonaprice.org/mo...food/highfructose.html
Until the 1970s most of the sugar we ate came from sucrose derived from sugar beets or sugar cane. Then sugar from corn--corn syrup, fructose, dextrose, dextrine and especially high fructose corn syrup (HFCS)--began to gain popularity as a sweetener because it was much less expensive to produce. High fructose corn syrup can be manipulated to contain equal amounts of fructose and glucose, or up to 80 percent fructose and 20 percent glucose.2 Thus, with almost twice the fructose, HFCS delivers a double danger compared to sugar.
(With regards to fruit, the ratio is usually 50 percent glucose and 50 percent fructose, but most commercial fruit juices have HFCS added. Fruit contains fiber which slows down the metabolism of fructose and other sugars, but the fructose in HFCS is absorbed very quickly.)
In 1980 the average person ate 39 pounds of fructose and 84 pounds of sucrose. In 1994 the average person ate 66 pounds of sucrose and 83 pounds of fructose, providing 19 percent of total caloric energy.3 Today approximately 25 percent of our average caloric intake comes from sugars, with the larger fraction as fructose.4
High fructose corn syrup is extremely soluble and mixes well in many foods. It is cheap to produce, sweet and easy to store. It?s used in everything from bread to pasta sauces to bacon to beer as well as in "health products" like protein bars and "natural" sodas.
There are many more studies and sites related to HFCS but I can't hold yuor hand all day my man.
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/79/4/537
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: rudder
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: rudder
Originally posted by: chuckywang
There are no scientific evidence that HFCS is worse for you than sugar. I do think sugar tastes better though, but I have no proof. In fact, I failed a blind taste test of regular coke vs. Mexican coke.
http://www.diabeteshealth.com/...h-fructose-corn-syrup/
HFCS is definetely worse for the body that sugar.
Your reading comprehension sucks. You forget one simple thing: Table sugar is 50% FRUCTOSE, just like HFCS. Both are roughly 50% Fructose and 50% glucose.
You ignorantly latch on to studies done on the effects of "fructose" and apply them only to HFCS because, well, HFCS has the word "fructose" in it.
When, in reality, HFCS and table sugar are metabolized by the body exactly the same because they are the same.
AND, the kicker? The article does NOT make the claim that HFCS is worse than an equal amount of sugar. It says it's as bad as sugar and says that diabetics should avoid it like they do sugar.
So why would you make this claim???
Cause I have threads to make and reply to rather than spending the day googling...
http://www.westonaprice.org/mo...food/highfructose.html
Until the 1970s most of the sugar we ate came from sucrose derived from sugar beets or sugar cane. Then sugar from corn--corn syrup, fructose, dextrose, dextrine and especially high fructose corn syrup (HFCS)--began to gain popularity as a sweetener because it was much less expensive to produce. High fructose corn syrup can be manipulated to contain equal amounts of fructose and glucose, or up to 80 percent fructose and 20 percent glucose.2 Thus, with almost twice the fructose, HFCS delivers a double danger compared to sugar.
(With regards to fruit, the ratio is usually 50 percent glucose and 50 percent fructose, but most commercial fruit juices have HFCS added. Fruit contains fiber which slows down the metabolism of fructose and other sugars, but the fructose in HFCS is absorbed very quickly.)
In 1980 the average person ate 39 pounds of fructose and 84 pounds of sucrose. In 1994 the average person ate 66 pounds of sucrose and 83 pounds of fructose, providing 19 percent of total caloric energy.3 Today approximately 25 percent of our average caloric intake comes from sugars, with the larger fraction as fructose.4
High fructose corn syrup is extremely soluble and mixes well in many foods. It is cheap to produce, sweet and easy to store. It?s used in everything from bread to pasta sauces to bacon to beer as well as in "health products" like protein bars and "natural" sodas.
There are many more studies and sites related to HFCS but I can't hold yuor hand all day my man.
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/79/4/537
HFCS used in food and beverages is NEVER higher than 55% Fructose.
Weston Price is a quack right up there with Mercola.
Your second link is nothing but a hair brained theory with NO proof whatsoever.
And at the end says:
"In conclusion, we believe that an argument can now be made that the use of HFCS in beverages should be reduced and that HFCS should be replaced with alternative noncaloric sweeteners."
Well DUH! Note they didn't say sugar? I wonder why?
There is no valid study showing any metobolic difference between an equal amount of sugar vs HFCS calories consumed. Not one.
Originally posted by: rudder
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: rudder
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: rudder
Originally posted by: chuckywang
There are no scientific evidence that HFCS is worse for you than sugar. I do think sugar tastes better though, but I have no proof. In fact, I failed a blind taste test of regular coke vs. Mexican coke.
http://www.diabeteshealth.com/...h-fructose-corn-syrup/
HFCS is definetely worse for the body that sugar.
Your reading comprehension sucks. You forget one simple thing: Table sugar is 50% FRUCTOSE, just like HFCS. Both are roughly 50% Fructose and 50% glucose.
You ignorantly latch on to studies done on the effects of "fructose" and apply them only to HFCS because, well, HFCS has the word "fructose" in it.
When, in reality, HFCS and table sugar are metabolized by the body exactly the same because they are the same.
AND, the kicker? The article does NOT make the claim that HFCS is worse than an equal amount of sugar. It says it's as bad as sugar and says that diabetics should avoid it like they do sugar.
So why would you make this claim???
Cause I have threads to make and reply to rather than spending the day googling...
http://www.westonaprice.org/mo...food/highfructose.html
Until the 1970s most of the sugar we ate came from sucrose derived from sugar beets or sugar cane. Then sugar from corn--corn syrup, fructose, dextrose, dextrine and especially high fructose corn syrup (HFCS)--began to gain popularity as a sweetener because it was much less expensive to produce. High fructose corn syrup can be manipulated to contain equal amounts of fructose and glucose, or up to 80 percent fructose and 20 percent glucose.2 Thus, with almost twice the fructose, HFCS delivers a double danger compared to sugar.
(With regards to fruit, the ratio is usually 50 percent glucose and 50 percent fructose, but most commercial fruit juices have HFCS added. Fruit contains fiber which slows down the metabolism of fructose and other sugars, but the fructose in HFCS is absorbed very quickly.)
In 1980 the average person ate 39 pounds of fructose and 84 pounds of sucrose. In 1994 the average person ate 66 pounds of sucrose and 83 pounds of fructose, providing 19 percent of total caloric energy.3 Today approximately 25 percent of our average caloric intake comes from sugars, with the larger fraction as fructose.4
High fructose corn syrup is extremely soluble and mixes well in many foods. It is cheap to produce, sweet and easy to store. It?s used in everything from bread to pasta sauces to bacon to beer as well as in "health products" like protein bars and "natural" sodas.
There are many more studies and sites related to HFCS but I can't hold yuor hand all day my man.
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/79/4/537
HFCS used in food and beverages is NEVER higher than 55% Fructose.
Weston Price is a quack right up there with Mercola.
Your second link is nothing but a hair brained theory with NO proof whatsoever.
And at the end says:
"In conclusion, we believe that an argument can now be made that the use of HFCS in beverages should be reduced and that HFCS should be replaced with alternative noncaloric sweeteners."
Well DUH! Note they didn't say sugar? I wonder why?
There is no valid study showing any metobolic difference between an equal amount of sugar vs HFCS calories consumed. Not one.
wow you actually read that second link? I got through about 1/2 a paragraph.
Originally posted by: rockyct
"Some beverage companies are also promoting their lack of HFCS. PepsiCo launched "throwback" versions of Pepsi and Mountain Dew, which are essentially HFCS-free formulations in retro cans. The products proved successful, leading the company to bring them back for another eight-week run, beginning Dec. 28."
Woot. I liked the taste of Pepsi throwback.