Marketers Answer Call to Eliminate High-Fructose Corn Syrup

[nakedfrog]

Amused, shouldn't you be against HFCS on economic freedom grounds anyway?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Amused, shouldn't you be against HFCS on economic freedom grounds anyway?

I'm not against HFCS. I'm against sugar tariffs.

But the reason I argue in HFCS is to dispel ignorant hysteria.

 

[TruePaige]

Very good to see. Now if they would just get rid of Aspartame from gum.

 

[Aharami]

Originally posted by: scott916
So it seems that most HFCS is roughly the same ratio of fructose to glucose as table sugar, but I for one can taste a big difference in sodas that use HFCS and those that use cane sugar. It's a completely different mouthfeel. Sugar has a sweetness that fades away cleanly, HFCS seems to linger on the tongue.

i stopped drinking coke/pepsi entirely because my mouth just feels nasty after i drink it. havent had pepsi throwback yet, but Im willing to go get a pack and do a blind test

 

[lokiju]

I have 2 cases of Mexican Coke that I got from Sams Club and it's a clear difference between that and the canned Coke I have.

The after taste it leaves on my tongue is nasty from the canned coke after having the bottled sugar based Mexican Coke.

Really beyond the push by the corn growers of the USA, I see no other reason companies should continue to use HFCS instead of sugar when a lot of consumers want sugar.

 

[skace]

We do not benefit at all from simply removing HFCS and adding an equal amount of sugar to a product.

 

[thecoolnessrune]

I don't care about HFCS at all. But for a while I was getting throwback because the price was the same, and throwback's sugar doesn't seem to have that certain aftertaste that normal pepsi has. When they raised the price on it though I went back to regular pepsi.

I like the taste of throwback more, but not enough to pay more for it.

 

[torpid]

Originally posted by: skace
We do not benefit at all from simply removing HFCS and adding an equal amount of sugar to a product.

We may benefit very slightly, until Monsanto turns its evil jowls towards the beet industry and does stuff that makes even Satan cringe to beets like they did corn.

 

[scott916]

Originally posted by: Aharami

Originally posted by: scott916
So it seems that most HFCS is roughly the same ratio of fructose to glucose as table sugar, but I for one can taste a big difference in sodas that use HFCS and those that use cane sugar. It's a completely different mouthfeel. Sugar has a sweetness that fades away cleanly, HFCS seems to linger on the tongue.

i stopped drinking coke/pepsi entirely because my mouth just feels nasty after i drink it. havent had pepsi throwback yet, but Im willing to go get a pack and do a blind test

It's drastically different. You'll be surprised.

 

[uclaLabrat]

HFCS is actually quite a bit better than sucrose. How's that you ask? Well, it turns out that fructose is much sweeter to our brains than sucrose, and as a result, less HFCS (and therefore total calories) need to be added to achieve the same sweetness. As for the rest of all the other hogwash (rudder, your links included), the metabolic fates of sucrose or HFCS are the same, since they're made of the same damn thing.

Moreover, pure table sugar has a fairly low glycemic index, due to the rate of hydrolysis of the glycosidic bond by the enzyme sucrase. HFCS may have a slightly higher glycemic index since the glucose is available directly to the blood stream, but I'm quite sure it's much less than something "healthy" like potatoes, where the amylase enzyme can quickly hydrolyze the amylose and amylopectin into glucose.

I've posted this crap before, no one ever seems to want to listen.

 

[foghorn67]

Originally posted by: uclaLabrat
HFCS is actually quite a bit better than sucrose. How's that you ask? Well, it turns out that fructose is much sweeter to our brains than sucrose, and as a result, less HFCS (and therefore total calories) need to be added to achieve the same sweetness. As for the rest of all the other hogwash (rudder, your links included), the metabolic fates of sucrose or HFCS are the same, since they're made of the same damn thing.

Moreover, pure table sugar has a fairly low glycemic index, due to the rate of hydrolysis of the glycosidic bond by the enzyme sucrase. HFCS may have a slightly higher glycemic index since the glucose is available directly to the blood stream, but I'm quite sure it's much less than something "healthy" like potatoes, where the amylase enzyme can quickly hydrolyze the amylose and amylopectin into glucose.

I've posted this crap before, no one ever seems to want to listen.

I hear you bro.

 

[brandonbull]

Originally posted by: zerocool84

Originally posted by: xSauronx

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.

i wish coke would do this. i know people say they make a kosher version with sugar for holidays or something but...we dont get any of that here. id love to try it, even though im not big on soda.

I just had some Pepsi Throwback last night and it tastes identical to regular Pepsi. Regular Pepsi is slightly sweeter. It's yet again your minds playing tricks on you. Just like the whole Organic foods tasting better which we know is not true.

The old "same but different" gag, I see.

 

[brandonbull]

Originally posted by: rudder

Originally posted by: Baked
You can start by switching a portion of field corn farms to sugar cane farms.

No we can stop subsidizing sugar farmers in florida and bring in cheaper suger to replace HFCS.

The state of Florida wanted to buy out vast amounts of cane fields in order to restore the natural waterflow in the Everglades.

 

[HardcoreRobot]

im astonished something was changed without government intervention, seems like we need to rely on them for everything these days.

 

[foghorn67]

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot
im astonished something was changed without government intervention, seems like we need to rely on them for everything these days.

can you add stop whining about HCFS in your sig?

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: brandonbull

Originally posted by: zerocool84
I just had some Pepsi Throwback last night and it tastes identical to regular Pepsi. Regular Pepsi is slightly sweeter. It's yet again your minds playing tricks on you. Just like the whole Organic foods tasting better which we know is not true.

The old "same but different" gag, I see.

Yeah, I'm not certain I follow there. Perhaps that's some archaic usage of "identical" with which we're not familiar, that means the same thing as "nearly identical"?

 

[SparkyJJO]

Originally posted by: skace
We do not benefit at all from simply removing HFCS and adding an equal amount of sugar to a product.

Well, we would, a little. Lots of sugar is bad for you. HFCS is just worse. When they put HFCS in your loaf of bread from the supermarket, that's just going to far. Seriously, it's bread, why put HFCS in it!?

The more we get away from HFCS the better. Then, work on getting people to stop eating so much darn sugar too of course.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: SparkyJJO

Originally posted by: skace
We do not benefit at all from simply removing HFCS and adding an equal amount of sugar to a product.

Well, we would, a little. Lots of sugar is bad for you. HFCS is just worse. When they put HFCS in your loaf of bread from the supermarket, that's just going to far. Seriously, it's bread, why put HFCS in it!?

The more we get away from HFCS the better. Then, work on getting people to stop eating so much darn sugar too of course.

Sugar is in a lot of bread recipes.

 

[BudAshes]

The funny thing about this is that our health issues have little to do with hfcs besides the fact that it makes sugary foods cheap. The problem is that there are more fast food restaurants per person in this country than should even be possible. People eat junk, then throw the trash that held that junk filling up landfills and causing their own bodies to bloat beyond recognition.

 

[manowar821]

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt
Is this what the nutjobs do with their time now that they can't cry about global warming?

The fuck is up your butt?

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: chorb
if you dont want it, dont eat it. Keep your crazy health nuts away from my artery clogging delicious food

not terribly easy, these days. it's so prevalent that it takes companies to ban them entirely from their products to make this even possible.

 

[SandEagle]

Originally posted by: TruePaige
Very good to see. Now if they would just get rid of Aspartame from gum.

:thumbsup:

 

[adlep]

It is about time...
HFCS == Bad
Sugar == Better

I am sorry for you if you can't tell a difference in taste between them.
Mexican coke > US Coke
Pepsi Throwback > Regular Pepsi.

 

[zinfamous]

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.

I think the issue is that it is a shit-load of unnecessary glucose compared to natural sugar.

For people with cancer, avoiding HFCS is an absolute necessity (tumors eat up glucose like it's going out of style). It is recommended in terms of reducing tumor growth. Then again, avoiding all sugar is best for this...

 

[rudder]

Originally posted by: Amused

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.

Could that be why you keep posting links that do nothing for your argument, and in two cases, actually support mine?

Could it be we are arguing over high fructose corn syrup. Today is a good day.