High fructose corn syrup rebranded as 'corn sugar'(huffingtonpost.com)
huffingtonpost.com
High fructose corn syrup rebranded as 'corn sugar'
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/14/corn-sugar-high-fructose-corn-syrup_n_716007.html
10 comments
And?
Sugar is what's bad for you. The "high fructose" in HFCS is "high" relative to other corn syrup; table sugar breaks down into glucose and fructose during digestion.
"Big Corn" is probably right, here; "HFCS" is a misleading term (for one thing, it doesn't mean anything --- different HFCS blends have wildly different amounts of fructose), and more importantly, the notion that it's just "the bad kind of sugar" that's hurting people is dangerous.
What is it with health reporting on the Huffington Post, anyways?
Sugar is what's bad for you. The "high fructose" in HFCS is "high" relative to other corn syrup; table sugar breaks down into glucose and fructose during digestion.
"Big Corn" is probably right, here; "HFCS" is a misleading term (for one thing, it doesn't mean anything --- different HFCS blends have wildly different amounts of fructose), and more importantly, the notion that it's just "the bad kind of sugar" that's hurting people is dangerous.
What is it with health reporting on the Huffington Post, anyways?
Fructose has proven to be particularly harmful - your liver shuts down while it's being processed, leading to all sorts of fun side effects.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fructose#Liver_disease
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fructose#Liver_disease
And, like I just said, table sugar breaks down into fructose during digestion, and "HFCS" isn't "HF" compared to "all other sweeteners"; it's "HF" compared to plain corn syrup, which is unpalatable.
HFCS alarmism is knee-jerk wishful thinking from people who want to blame some boogeyman industrial process for all the nation's health problems. The problem is our addiction to sweetness. HFCS obviously abets this by making it cheaper to sweeten things, but get rid of HFCS and it'll just get replaced with some other sugar. Sugar is bad for you.
http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/443/csaph3a08-sum... -
The primary difference is that these monosaccharides exist free in solution in HFCS, but in disaccharide form in sucrose. The disaccharide sucrose is easily cleaved in the small intestine, so free fructose and glucose are absorbed from both sucrose and HFCS.
HFCS alarmism is knee-jerk wishful thinking from people who want to blame some boogeyman industrial process for all the nation's health problems. The problem is our addiction to sweetness. HFCS obviously abets this by making it cheaper to sweeten things, but get rid of HFCS and it'll just get replaced with some other sugar. Sugar is bad for you.
http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/443/csaph3a08-sum... -
The primary difference is that these monosaccharides exist free in solution in HFCS, but in disaccharide form in sucrose. The disaccharide sucrose is easily cleaved in the small intestine, so free fructose and glucose are absorbed from both sucrose and HFCS.
As I understand it, the complaint isn't over the "H" part, but the 'F'. Obviously nothing is going to be "higher" sugar than a spoonful of, um, sugar (setting aside issues of density).
But I'd point out that you've taken a page from the corn industry and edited your previous words. You had said earlier "table sugar breaks down into glucose and fructose during digestion", but revised that to "table sugar breaks down into fructose during digestion".
The controversy here is that (AFAIK) HFCS is all, or much more, fructose than glucuse, relative to table sugar; how does the body react to the difference between fructose and glucose?
But I'd point out that you've taken a page from the corn industry and edited your previous words. You had said earlier "table sugar breaks down into glucose and fructose during digestion", but revised that to "table sugar breaks down into fructose during digestion".
The controversy here is that (AFAIK) HFCS is all, or much more, fructose than glucuse, relative to table sugar; how does the body react to the difference between fructose and glucose?
That last sentence is false. HFCS is not "much more" fructose than glucose relative to table sugar. It's "much more" fructose than other sugars relative to unpalatable plain corn syrup. Table sugar is metabolized very similarly to HFCS, with very similar (some sources would say nearly identical) fructose loads. The difference is that HFCS contains free-floating fructose, and sucrose is a disaccharide (of glucose and fructose) that is very quickly broken into plain 'ol glucose and fructose as soon as it hits your digestive system.
'carbocation may jump in here to set me straight (I'd be surprised but happy to have learned something), but my understanding here is that there is nothing more healthful about plain table sugar than HFCS. They are both very bad for you in the same way.
'carbocation may jump in here to set me straight (I'd be surprised but happy to have learned something), but my understanding here is that there is nothing more healthful about plain table sugar than HFCS. They are both very bad for you in the same way.
HFCS also hits you much faster than normal sugar. All the HFCS hits you at once, the sucrose does actually take a small amount of time.
While this may be difference between drinking a pint of 100 proof alcohol vs a cup of 200 proof (i.e. not much), it may prove signifigant.
To me, people should have the labeling required to tell if this substance is in their food. I personally don't totally avoid it, nor do I look for it, but I feel people should have that ability.
While this may be difference between drinking a pint of 100 proof alcohol vs a cup of 200 proof (i.e. not much), it may prove signifigant.
To me, people should have the labeling required to tell if this substance is in their food. I personally don't totally avoid it, nor do I look for it, but I feel people should have that ability.
Can you cite a peer-reviewed source that says that HFCS "hits you much faster" than sucrose? The sources I found suggest that the two are handled almost identically once in the bloodstream.
We're talking pre-bloodstream, and the mechanism is understood science (everything does this process, it's a widely taught part of biology) It's how everything
(bacteria to humans) digests all non single molecule sugars and starch (i.e. sucrose on up).
Here it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glycoside_hydrolase
It is a non-instantaneous process which is limited by the reaction catalyzed by the enzyme. Some diabetic drugs work off this enzyme by inhibiting it's function (as do some antimicrobial drugs/substances).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acarbose http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miglitol http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voglibose
So I'm going to point at the existence of drugs working off this mechanism instead of finding the research that established them.
As GH works off complex carbohydrates and HFCS is a mixtures of simple carbohydrates, it is not slowed by any inhibition of the GH reaction in the stomach.
As my comment said: While this may be difference between drinking a pint of 100 proof alcohol vs a cup of 200 proof (i.e. not much), it may prove significant.
It appears to effect rats differently at least for instance: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi...
Here it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glycoside_hydrolase
It is a non-instantaneous process which is limited by the reaction catalyzed by the enzyme. Some diabetic drugs work off this enzyme by inhibiting it's function (as do some antimicrobial drugs/substances).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acarbose http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miglitol http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voglibose
So I'm going to point at the existence of drugs working off this mechanism instead of finding the research that established them.
As GH works off complex carbohydrates and HFCS is a mixtures of simple carbohydrates, it is not slowed by any inhibition of the GH reaction in the stomach.
As my comment said: While this may be difference between drinking a pint of 100 proof alcohol vs a cup of 200 proof (i.e. not much), it may prove significant.
It appears to effect rats differently at least for instance: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi...
Don't disagree overall, but I have three reasons for thinking you might be oversimplifying a bit. Given how much sweeter HFCS is than sucrose, there's reason to believe that our addiction to sweetness is partly the work of that industrial process; there's a pretty big difference between HFCS and sucrose (the latter of course being "only" 50% fructose); and the correlation between the HFCS growth curve and the obesity growth curve is remarkable.
The HFCS in processed food is also "only" 50% (45-55% depending) fructose.
I've managed to position myself as the HFCS defender in this thread, and I'm anything but. HFCS is evil. But it's misleading to blame the "High Fructose" part of the acronym for the evil. Demonizing HFCS gives cover to every other food processor that adds sugars to increase palatability to earn extra sales at the expense of our health.
I've managed to position myself as the HFCS defender in this thread, and I'm anything but. HFCS is evil. But it's misleading to blame the "High Fructose" part of the acronym for the evil. Demonizing HFCS gives cover to every other food processor that adds sugars to increase palatability to earn extra sales at the expense of our health.
The way I learned it from the nice professor in the video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM) was simply:
fructose = bad, poison
glucose = good
sucrose = fructose + glucose, unsafe because the composition preserves the fructose portion
HFCS = 25% fructose, not as bad as sucrose (IIRC)
Mitigate fructose intake with fiber. apple juice = bad, but apple = good because of the fiber countering the effect of the poison at a higher point in our internal food processing chain.
I noticed you were getting downvotes, and I suspect it is because of the general "Sugar is bad for you" statement, which is -- as far as the studies go -- half correct. The rest of your text makes the distinction, so I hope it is not wholly ignored. HFCS is a scapegoat, as you point out, and it would help if we focused on the one part that is important: fructose is poison. And it can be mitigated with fiber.
But that's just what I learned from some video. One thing that always bugged me: glucose is known commonly as "grape sugar". Do grapes have fructose? Without any fructose added, is grape juice a healthy fruit juice?
fructose = bad, poison
glucose = good
sucrose = fructose + glucose, unsafe because the composition preserves the fructose portion
HFCS = 25% fructose, not as bad as sucrose (IIRC)
Mitigate fructose intake with fiber. apple juice = bad, but apple = good because of the fiber countering the effect of the poison at a higher point in our internal food processing chain.
I noticed you were getting downvotes, and I suspect it is because of the general "Sugar is bad for you" statement, which is -- as far as the studies go -- half correct. The rest of your text makes the distinction, so I hope it is not wholly ignored. HFCS is a scapegoat, as you point out, and it would help if we focused on the one part that is important: fructose is poison. And it can be mitigated with fiber.
But that's just what I learned from some video. One thing that always bugged me: glucose is known commonly as "grape sugar". Do grapes have fructose? Without any fructose added, is grape juice a healthy fruit juice?
HFCS comes in varying F/G ratios. HFCS-55 is the most common, which is 55% fructose. The other two common varieties are HFCS-90 and HFCS-42. All HFCS starts at 90 then pure glucose corn syrup is added to dilute it down. HFCS-55 is about as sweet as sugar (unless heated, in which case it it significantly less so).
For my learning, aside from my 25% figure being misleading, can anyone explain their disagreement with my comment? Is the video a bad source?
Sucrose in generally shown to be less harmful than HFCS in many tests, which in the alternative show at best it's only as harmful.
Here is one study: We're talking pre-bloodstream, and the mechanism is understood science (everything does this process, it's a widely taught part of biology) It's how everything (bacteria to humans) digests all non single molecule sugars and starch (i.e. sucrose on up).
Here it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glycoside_hydrolase
It is a non-instantaneous process which is limited by the reaction catalyzed by the enzyme. Some diabetic drugs work off this enzyme by inhibiting it's function (as do some antimicrobial drugs/substances).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acarbose http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miglitol http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voglibose
So I'm going to point at the existence of drugs working off this mechanism instead of finding the research that established them.
As GH works off complex carbohydrates and HFCS is a mixtures of simple carbohydrates, it is not slowed by any inhibition of the GH reaction in the stomach.
As my comment said: While this may be difference between drinking a pint of 100 proof alcohol vs a cup of 200 proof (i.e. not much), it may prove significant.
It appears to effect rats differently at least for instance: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi...
Here is one study: We're talking pre-bloodstream, and the mechanism is understood science (everything does this process, it's a widely taught part of biology) It's how everything (bacteria to humans) digests all non single molecule sugars and starch (i.e. sucrose on up).
Here it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glycoside_hydrolase
It is a non-instantaneous process which is limited by the reaction catalyzed by the enzyme. Some diabetic drugs work off this enzyme by inhibiting it's function (as do some antimicrobial drugs/substances).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acarbose http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miglitol http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voglibose
So I'm going to point at the existence of drugs working off this mechanism instead of finding the research that established them.
As GH works off complex carbohydrates and HFCS is a mixtures of simple carbohydrates, it is not slowed by any inhibition of the GH reaction in the stomach.
As my comment said: While this may be difference between drinking a pint of 100 proof alcohol vs a cup of 200 proof (i.e. not much), it may prove significant.
It appears to effect rats differently at least for instance: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi...
Can you cite one human test that shows HFCS to be more harmful than sucrose? Because I'm not going to suggest that the AMA is at all the end-all of medical research (it's clearly not even close), but the AMA says "Because the composition of HFCS and sucrose are so similar, particularly on absorption by the body, it appears unlikely that HFCS contributes more to obesity or other conditions than sucrose.".
Read the full statement. They're just saying "Don't pass laws yet, but keep studying it, preferably in an independent manner":
REPORT 3 OF THE COUNCIL ON SCIENCE AND PUBLIC HEALTH (A-08) The Health Effects of High Fructose Syrup EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Objective: To review the chemical properties and health effects of high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) in comparison to other added caloric sweeteners and to evaluate the potential impact of restricting use of fructose-containing sweeteners, including the use of warning labels on foods containing high fructose syrups. Methods: Literature searches for articles published though December 2007 were conducted in the PubMed database and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews using the search terms “high fructose corn syrup” and “high fructose syrup.” Web sites managed by federal and world health agencies, and applicable professional and advocacy organizations, were also reviewed for relevant information. Additional articles were identified by reviewing the reference lists of pertinent publications. Results: HFCS has been increasingly added to foods since its development in the late 1960s. The most commonly used types of HFCS (HFCS-42 and HFCS-55) are similar in composition to sucrose, consisting of roughly equal amounts of fructose and glucose. The primary difference is that these monosaccharides exist free in solution in HFCS, but in disaccharide form in sucrose. The disaccharide sucrose is easily cleaved in the small intestine, so free fructose and glucose are absorbed from both sucrose and HFCS. The advantage to food manufacturers is that the free monosaccharides in HFCS provide better flavor enhancement, stability, freshness, texture, color, pourability, and consistency in foods in comparison to sucrose. Concern about HFCS developed after ecological studies, using per capita estimates of HFCS consumption, found direct correlations between HFCS and obesity. In addition, human and animal studies have found direct associations between fructose and adverse health outcomes. However, the adverse health effects of HFCS, beyond those of other caloric sweeteners, most of which contain fructose, are not well established. Consumption of added caloric sweeteners in general has increased over the last 30 years, as has total calories. Likewise, rates of obesity have risen even in countries where little HFCS is consumed. Only a few small, short-term experimental studies have compared the effects of HFCS to sucrose, and most involved some form of industry support. Epidemiological studies on HFCS and health outcomes are unavailable, beyond ecological studies, because nutrient databases do not contain information on the HFCS content of foods and have only limited data on added sugars in general. Conclusions: Because the composition of HFCS and sucrose are so similar, particularly on absorption by the body, it appears unlikely that HFCS contributes more to obesity or other conditions than sucrose. Nevertheless, few studies have evaluated the potentially differential effect of various sweeteners, particularly as they relate to health conditions such as obesity, which develop over relatively long periods of time. Improved nutrient databases are needed to analyze food consumption in epidemiological studies, as are more strongly designed experimental studies. At the present time, there is insufficient evidence to restrict use of HFCS or other fructose- containing sweeteners in the food supply or to require the use of warning labels on products containing HFCS. RECOMMENDATIONS The following statements, recommended by the Council on Science and Public Health, were adopted by the AMA House of Delegates as AMA directives at the 2008 Annual Meeting: 1. That our American Medical Association (AMA) recognize that at the present time, insufficient evidence exists to specifically restrict use of high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) or other fructose- containing sweeteners in the food supply or to require the use of warning labels on products containing HFCS. (Directive) 2. That our AMA encourage independent research (including epidemiological studies) on the health effects of HFCS and other sweeteners, and evaluation of the mechanism of action and relationship between fructose dose and response. (Directive) 3. That our AMA, in concert with the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, recommend that consumers limit the amount of added caloric sweeteners in their diet. (Directive)
REPORT 3 OF THE COUNCIL ON SCIENCE AND PUBLIC HEALTH (A-08) The Health Effects of High Fructose Syrup EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Objective: To review the chemical properties and health effects of high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) in comparison to other added caloric sweeteners and to evaluate the potential impact of restricting use of fructose-containing sweeteners, including the use of warning labels on foods containing high fructose syrups. Methods: Literature searches for articles published though December 2007 were conducted in the PubMed database and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews using the search terms “high fructose corn syrup” and “high fructose syrup.” Web sites managed by federal and world health agencies, and applicable professional and advocacy organizations, were also reviewed for relevant information. Additional articles were identified by reviewing the reference lists of pertinent publications. Results: HFCS has been increasingly added to foods since its development in the late 1960s. The most commonly used types of HFCS (HFCS-42 and HFCS-55) are similar in composition to sucrose, consisting of roughly equal amounts of fructose and glucose. The primary difference is that these monosaccharides exist free in solution in HFCS, but in disaccharide form in sucrose. The disaccharide sucrose is easily cleaved in the small intestine, so free fructose and glucose are absorbed from both sucrose and HFCS. The advantage to food manufacturers is that the free monosaccharides in HFCS provide better flavor enhancement, stability, freshness, texture, color, pourability, and consistency in foods in comparison to sucrose. Concern about HFCS developed after ecological studies, using per capita estimates of HFCS consumption, found direct correlations between HFCS and obesity. In addition, human and animal studies have found direct associations between fructose and adverse health outcomes. However, the adverse health effects of HFCS, beyond those of other caloric sweeteners, most of which contain fructose, are not well established. Consumption of added caloric sweeteners in general has increased over the last 30 years, as has total calories. Likewise, rates of obesity have risen even in countries where little HFCS is consumed. Only a few small, short-term experimental studies have compared the effects of HFCS to sucrose, and most involved some form of industry support. Epidemiological studies on HFCS and health outcomes are unavailable, beyond ecological studies, because nutrient databases do not contain information on the HFCS content of foods and have only limited data on added sugars in general. Conclusions: Because the composition of HFCS and sucrose are so similar, particularly on absorption by the body, it appears unlikely that HFCS contributes more to obesity or other conditions than sucrose. Nevertheless, few studies have evaluated the potentially differential effect of various sweeteners, particularly as they relate to health conditions such as obesity, which develop over relatively long periods of time. Improved nutrient databases are needed to analyze food consumption in epidemiological studies, as are more strongly designed experimental studies. At the present time, there is insufficient evidence to restrict use of HFCS or other fructose- containing sweeteners in the food supply or to require the use of warning labels on products containing HFCS. RECOMMENDATIONS The following statements, recommended by the Council on Science and Public Health, were adopted by the AMA House of Delegates as AMA directives at the 2008 Annual Meeting: 1. That our American Medical Association (AMA) recognize that at the present time, insufficient evidence exists to specifically restrict use of high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) or other fructose- containing sweeteners in the food supply or to require the use of warning labels on products containing HFCS. (Directive) 2. That our AMA encourage independent research (including epidemiological studies) on the health effects of HFCS and other sweeteners, and evaluation of the mechanism of action and relationship between fructose dose and response. (Directive) 3. That our AMA, in concert with the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, recommend that consumers limit the amount of added caloric sweeteners in their diet. (Directive)
A study by UC Davis also found that fructose causes more intra-abdominal fat buildup (around the organs) relative to glucose.
Apparently also causes man-boobs.
The paper: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2673878/?tool=pu...
highlights: http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/goodbye-fructose.h...
The paper: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2673878/?tool=pu...
highlights: http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/goodbye-fructose.h...
While I agree with you about HFCS, it does strike me as slimy to rename a product in order to trick people specifically trying to avoid that product into continuing to consume it.
They're rebranding it to "sugar". Good for them. Sugar is the problem. Singling out HFCS actually does everyone a disservice, by making them think that if they just seek out "HFCS-free" foods they'll be fine. No they won't.
I thought this too, until I read this: http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S26/91/22K07/
A Princeton University research team has demonstrated that all sweeteners are not equal when it comes to weight gain: Rats with access to high-fructose corn syrup gained significantly more weight than those with access to table sugar, even when their overall caloric intake was the same.
A Princeton University research team has demonstrated that all sweeteners are not equal when it comes to weight gain: Rats with access to high-fructose corn syrup gained significantly more weight than those with access to table sugar, even when their overall caloric intake was the same.
This is one very recent very controversial rat study which relies on the group's previous observation that rats whose diets are supplemented with sucrose solution eat less to compensate for the sucrose, but don't eat less to compensate for HFCS.
Look, to avoid a rathole argument that neither of us are really qualified to have, let's just stipulate: HFCS is evil. I completely agree. Regardless of any distinctive biochemical affects, it is clearly a tool used by the food industry to amp up palatability (and thus consumption and thus profit margin) in processed foods. But if we fixate on HFCS, we're just going to be victimized by the whatever sugar the industry replaces HFCS with.
Look, to avoid a rathole argument that neither of us are really qualified to have, let's just stipulate: HFCS is evil. I completely agree. Regardless of any distinctive biochemical affects, it is clearly a tool used by the food industry to amp up palatability (and thus consumption and thus profit margin) in processed foods. But if we fixate on HFCS, we're just going to be victimized by the whatever sugar the industry replaces HFCS with.
I'm not even prepared to agree that HFCS is evil. Just that there are reasons to differentiate it from sucrose, and sugar is essentially synonymous with sucrose. "Corn sucrose" is clearly not accurate, and "corn sugar" means essentially that.
(Also, prefacing a comment with "look," is superfluous)
(Also, prefacing a comment with "look," is superfluous)
An interesting personal observation to that controversial study: When I drink a regular hfcs-sweetened cola, it really has no noticable affect on my hunger level, on my fullness level, nothing. On the other hand when I drink one of the can sugar varieties, it actually does sate some hunger. Further, the cane sugar varieties make me feel full after drinking one.
I am not unique in this observation... but it is still anecdotal, take it as you will.
I am not unique in this observation... but it is still anecdotal, take it as you will.
Consuming anything heavily sweetened --- or even high in refined carbohydrates of any sort --- should play havoc with your appetite, simply because of the way insulin works.
And yet, assuming the mice on table sugar weren't more hyped up than those on HCFS, we still perpetuate the leaky abstraction of calories in, calories out.
While I'm also interested in the leakiness of "cals in cals out", the study in question isn't that inconsistent with the model; HFCS was obesogenic in rats, but that's a fuzzy term that in this case seems to mean in part "when fed HFCS, rats ate more."
The parent stated they ate the same amount of calories.
Earlier HN thread:
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1629082
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1629082
From the article in that thread:
In fact, sucrose — even “natural” cane sugar — is 50% fructose once it is digested and absorbed. While this is 20% less than the fructose content of HFCS 55, food manufacturers need to use less (about 20% less) HFCS 55 to get the same sweetness, so it’s a wash as far as fructose content.
In fact, sucrose — even “natural” cane sugar — is 50% fructose once it is digested and absorbed. While this is 20% less than the fructose content of HFCS 55, food manufacturers need to use less (about 20% less) HFCS 55 to get the same sweetness, so it’s a wash as far as fructose content.
In my practical experience at the grocery store, avoiding HFCS will at least accidentally lead you to a lower sugar diet. This is mostly due to the fact that at a typical grocery store you won't be able to find many of the more processed goods that don't have HFCS in it (there is literally 1 brand of bread out of 10-15 at the local Publix without HFCS), so you'll basically be forced to buy more raw vegetables, fruits, meats, etc.
I think you're correct, but the ends don't justify the means. If someone wants to avoid eating HFCS, even for the most ignorant and misguided reasons in the world, it is still unethical to change how HCFS is listed in the product ingredients in order to trick them into eating it.
What's unethical is the promotion of the idea that sweetened food is healthful if it contains natural sugars. The more HFCS is conflated with "natural" sugar, to my mind, the better off we are.
What's even more interesting is that zero calorie sweeteners are just as bad, stevia or other-such. They still produce weight gain. Simply tasting sweet produces insulin spikes.
Yep- Zero calorie sweeteners (especially Aspartame) are much worse than HFCS or Cane Sugar.
When Aspartame breaks down it releases Methyl Alcohol (anti-freeze) into your body. It's also been shown to have a similar effect as MSG regarding brain damage.
HFCS isn't much better though. The problem is that Fructose is normally found in fruit and therefore eaten with fiber, which slows the digestion and controls the insulin spike. Fructose alone digests much faster than sucrose.
When Aspartame breaks down it releases Methyl Alcohol (anti-freeze) into your body. It's also been shown to have a similar effect as MSG regarding brain damage.
HFCS isn't much better though. The problem is that Fructose is normally found in fruit and therefore eaten with fiber, which slows the digestion and controls the insulin spike. Fructose alone digests much faster than sucrose.
"A similar effect as MSG". That's... terrifying. I better stop eating all those tomatoes.
While sugar is bad for you, there is some evidence that corn syrup is especially so. Not conclusive yet, but enough that some cautious souls are avoiding it.
In the vein of truth in labeling, I think the goods should be well enough labelled that is possible.
In the vein of truth in labeling, I think the goods should be well enough labelled that is possible.
Not everyone avoids HFCS because of health reasons; some of us avoid it because it tastes like shit.
We avoid it because my girlfriend is allergic to it; which seriously limits what foods we can buy from the store.
I don't understand how that's even possible. Is she also allergic to all fruit and most vegetables?
Yeah, I don't know how it works. She's actually also allergic to Canola oil, so she's basically a walking litmus test for packaged foods.
She's not allergic to any fruit, but is allergic to potatoes and onions (which made bringing her home to meet my Irish family an interesting experience). Oh, and beef and dairy.
She's not allergic to any fruit, but is allergic to potatoes and onions (which made bringing her home to meet my Irish family an interesting experience). Oh, and beef and dairy.
I thought the "High Fructose" was an earlier attempt to make it sound good to the consumer.
Fructose = fruit, fruit = good, therefore "High Fructose" = good
Fructose = fruit, fruit = good, therefore "High Fructose" = good
Maybe, but the consumers have adapted.
Indeed, HFCS and sugar are biologically equivalent. The problem is that since it became available it is being put in everything as a substitute for real flavor. People are more likely to buy products that "taste better" when really it's just saturated with sugar.
What bothers me more is the possible presence of mercury in HFCS, as tested by Consumer Reports: http://blogs.consumerreports.org/health/2009/01/mercury-in-h...
(Mercury is really bad for you, of course.)
Also of note: HFCS is even found in whole wheat bread at my local grocery store, which seems quite odd.
I can understand saving money by using HFCS over sugar in a sugar-laden soft drink, but the few grams of sugar needed to get the yeast going?!
(Mercury is really bad for you, of course.)
Also of note: HFCS is even found in whole wheat bread at my local grocery store, which seems quite odd.
I can understand saving money by using HFCS over sugar in a sugar-laden soft drink, but the few grams of sugar needed to get the yeast going?!
So, it should be labelled what it actually is, not rebranded to something more broad and misleading. HCFS-55 or HCFS-42 or HCFS-90, or whatever.
Actually all HFCS is HFCS-90 mixed with pure glucose corn syrup, I'd prefer they just listed them as separate ingredients (as they do with "Milk Chocolate" and the like).
Ok, can we label cane sugar as "CS-50" then? Labeling so people can pay attention to the amount of fructose they're metabolizing seems like a good thing. Setting up a system that gives a free pass to anything that doesn't start with "HFCS" seems like a very bad thing.
Trying to eliminate what I consider "bad" foods from my diet is becoming harder as the producers change the name. I really don't care if it has been proved beyond a shadow of a doubt to be bad - because that process took over 100 years for tobacco. I want X out of my life, I should be allowed to detect items containing X.
You eat tons of things every day that are equivalent to X without realizing it.
Would you shy away from foods that have list of ingredients that included fructose and glucose? That's all corn syrup is (and a few random corn solids here and there.)
Apples have a really high fructose content too, so technically drinking apple juice can be worse than drinking a dilute corn syrup solution (depending on the kind of HFCS), but almost no one thinks twice about that because it's "natural." (Although there is a growing anti-juice movement.)
Data from Wikipedia (remaining content is glucose):
HFCS90: 90% Fructose
Apple Juice: 63-78% Fructose
HFCS55: 55% Fructose
HFCS43: 43% Fructose
Would you shy away from foods that have list of ingredients that included fructose and glucose? That's all corn syrup is (and a few random corn solids here and there.)
Apples have a really high fructose content too, so technically drinking apple juice can be worse than drinking a dilute corn syrup solution (depending on the kind of HFCS), but almost no one thinks twice about that because it's "natural." (Although there is a growing anti-juice movement.)
Data from Wikipedia (remaining content is glucose):
HFCS90: 90% Fructose
Apple Juice: 63-78% Fructose
HFCS55: 55% Fructose
HFCS43: 43% Fructose
Maybe I'm Jewish and I want to keep kosher. Maybe I'm not. It is my decision what goes into my body. Not yours. Not some company's.
There are a lot of foods I don't eat anymore. I happen to love chocolate. But I don't want to eat chocolate with PGPR in it, therefore I don't purchase Hershey's anymore. Is PGPR "bad" for me? Umm, no. When you were a child, you had (and ate) "wax lips" which are PGPR with some color added. It doesn't belong in my chocolate, therefore I refuse to eat it, and refuse to purchase foods with PGPR
There are a lot of foods I don't eat anymore. I happen to love chocolate. But I don't want to eat chocolate with PGPR in it, therefore I don't purchase Hershey's anymore. Is PGPR "bad" for me? Umm, no. When you were a child, you had (and ate) "wax lips" which are PGPR with some color added. It doesn't belong in my chocolate, therefore I refuse to eat it, and refuse to purchase foods with PGPR
>It doesn't belong in my chocolate, therefore I refuse to eat it, and refuse to purchase foods with PGPR
You're weird. Chocolate originally comes in bean form; some brilliant South Americans got the idea to grind it up with sugar and water and drink it. Chocolate in solid form is a pretty damn new idea and hardly even counts as a food; it's a pretty weird concoction to be a "purist" about. Where does your platonic idea of chocolate come from?
I have a few friends that keep pretty strict kosher, and I think they're weird too. But at least I can get a handle on it because it's written in book they feel like following the rules of. I don't really understand this extreme fetishism we have for what we eat that people pull out of their anal area.
You're weird. Chocolate originally comes in bean form; some brilliant South Americans got the idea to grind it up with sugar and water and drink it. Chocolate in solid form is a pretty damn new idea and hardly even counts as a food; it's a pretty weird concoction to be a "purist" about. Where does your platonic idea of chocolate come from?
I have a few friends that keep pretty strict kosher, and I think they're weird too. But at least I can get a handle on it because it's written in book they feel like following the rules of. I don't really understand this extreme fetishism we have for what we eat that people pull out of their anal area.
It's called a preference, dude. Having a preference doesn't make you weird. I happen to prefer chocolate bars with over 75% cocoa content. It is just what I prefer.
Blindly consuming anything put in front of you is weird.
Also, chocolate as a drink originated in Mexico and they didn't mix sugar with it. They mixed ground chili peppers.
Blindly consuming anything put in front of you is weird.
Also, chocolate as a drink originated in Mexico and they didn't mix sugar with it. They mixed ground chili peppers.
I don't think he's denying your right to have a preference - that being said, avoiding things with a rational reason seems mighty weird to me.
So you prefer chocolate bars with >75% Cocoa, I can get that - so do I. I like the taste of pure dark chocolate more than the taste of milk chocolate, say.
So, if you were avoiding HFCS for health reasons, or taste reasons, I totally get that. But "I just dont' want it in my food, mmm'kay?" seems weird to me.
> "Blindly consuming anything put in front of you is weird."
Oh come on, now you're just taking this personally and getting rude. At no point did previous poster suggest that either you or him "blindly consume" anything put in front of you.
So you prefer chocolate bars with >75% Cocoa, I can get that - so do I. I like the taste of pure dark chocolate more than the taste of milk chocolate, say.
So, if you were avoiding HFCS for health reasons, or taste reasons, I totally get that. But "I just dont' want it in my food, mmm'kay?" seems weird to me.
> "Blindly consuming anything put in front of you is weird."
Oh come on, now you're just taking this personally and getting rude. At no point did previous poster suggest that either you or him "blindly consume" anything put in front of you.
Rude? I'm not sure I follow you.
My point is that the opposite of having preferences is just consuming everything. It is just as "weird" as having very distinct preferences.
I also think it is rude to call someone weird but maybe I am alone in this.
My point is that the opposite of having preferences is just consuming everything. It is just as "weird" as having very distinct preferences.
I also think it is rude to call someone weird but maybe I am alone in this.
I can't speak for the previous poster - but many people I know (including myself) take pride in being weird; after all, what is there to be proud of in simply being the same as everyone else? I doubt "weird" was meant as an insult - I certainly didn't get that tone from the previous poster.
The rudeness comment is in reference to your rather aggressive response to what I perceived as a bit of idle observation. He indicated that preference without rational reason is weird (and to be honest, I'm inclined to agree), and you responded by insinuating that he would blindly eat anything presented to him, which is clearly not the case.
The rudeness comment is in reference to your rather aggressive response to what I perceived as a bit of idle observation. He indicated that preference without rational reason is weird (and to be honest, I'm inclined to agree), and you responded by insinuating that he would blindly eat anything presented to him, which is clearly not the case.
Agree. Also, in the case of chocolate there are other important reasons (chocolate slavery) to refuse buying from industry giants.
http://vision.ucsd.edu/~kbranson/stopchocolateslavery/
Good. Now that it's easier to say, maybe it'll be easier to get people to rally against it.
Back when I was in Business School, I did some strategic analysis role-modeling as if I were in charge of Monsanto. At the time, Monsanto was best known for the "terminator gene", suing farmers allegedly stealing their agricultural IP, and BT corn that killed monarch butterflies.
I suggested that they change their name as the first part of their strategy to turn over a new leaf in both PR as well as core business activity. My peers mocked me, saying that no big evil corporation would be so brazen as to just change their name to clean up their brand, as their critics would see right through it.
The very next week, Philip Morris rebranded itself to Altria.
I suggested that they change their name as the first part of their strategy to turn over a new leaf in both PR as well as core business activity. My peers mocked me, saying that no big evil corporation would be so brazen as to just change their name to clean up their brand, as their critics would see right through it.
The very next week, Philip Morris rebranded itself to Altria.
It's a good strategy. Interestingly Blackwater changed their name to Xe to try and shake off the bad image.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackwater_Worldwide
Still a nasty organization, name change or not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackwater_Worldwide
Still a nasty organization, name change or not.
I think the trick is in choosing a new name that actually sounds nicer than the old one, and not that of an alien overlord.
Well, they are mercenaries after all...
I half suspect they picked a difficult to pronounce name so nobody would talk about them.
I half suspect they picked a difficult to pronounce name so nobody would talk about them.
Neither of the names are PR gold. 'Blackwater' is the plumber's term for sewage. 'Xe' sounds alien or like a B-movie villain accent: "We have xe plans, nothing will prevent xe final solution now!"
The genius behind 'Xe' is that some people will say 'zee', others will say 'ecks-ee'. If someone hears something bad about the organization by mouth, they won't know what to type into Google to read about it, and even if they do know how to spell it they'll get hits about a noble gas and a currency exchange site.
They are both really spooky sounding names, though. Blackwater is so alpha-male sounding, and it makes the phrase "Blackwater Contractor" sound (probably) more evil than they actually are.
They were originally named after the area in Virginia where they were located, but what always struck me as odd (given that they are all ex navy) is that "black water" is the common nautical term for ship sewage. That's a rough brand association to overcome.
The (evil) genius in the Blackwater rebranding is that they anti-SEO'd themselves by picking such an overused new name. Even if you followed the name change, searching for Xe didn't return any Blackwater-relevant results for quite awhile.
And unless people spell it out in conversation, no one would know to search for "Xe" anyway.
Value Jet renamed themselves AirTran after one of their planes exploded. GTE became Verizon after being horrible for years.
Great hacker branding intro: http://blip.tv/file/319044/
"A brand is a const identifier."
(back story to the video: http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2007/08/how-to-make-funny-ta...)
Great hacker branding intro: http://blip.tv/file/319044/
"A brand is a const identifier."
(back story to the video: http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2007/08/how-to-make-funny-ta...)
Windscale renamed itself Sellafield after a little tiny, nothing to worry about, nothing to see here, reactor explosion.
Plan B, after the next incident, is to rename it Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch
Plan B, after the next incident, is to rename it Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch
Here's some humour help. Looks like your third attempt is almost Welsh.
How about: Windscale renamed itself Sellafield after their reactor exploded. I hear they're going to try "Blaidd Drwg" next.
How about: Windscale renamed itself Sellafield after their reactor exploded. I hear they're going to try "Blaidd Drwg" next.
Llanfair.... is a famous (for very small values of famous) welsh railway station with the longest name in the world. People go there to take pictures of the sign.
However having a name longer than a tweet is likely to limit your fame in the internet age!
However having a name longer than a tweet is likely to limit your fame in the internet age!
Mae'n ddrwg gennyf am y camddeall. Yr wyf yn sefyll gywiro.
The grammar geek in me likes the parallel construction between "corn sugar" and "cane sugar".
No matter what they call it, I will still prefer the taste of my imported Mexican Coke made with cane sugar.
No matter what they call it, I will still prefer the taste of my imported Mexican Coke made with cane sugar.
Wow, you know what, I bet that's exactly why they picked the name. "Corn syrup" and "cane sugar" are comfortable and familiar. What could fit in with those better than "corn sugar"? One has to make a cognitive effort to distinguish them, and people don't make that kind of cognitive effort very often. This is brilliant marketing. The tobacco industry must be green with envy.
Just like distinguishing baking soda from baking powder.
Have you ever eaten something baked by someone who missed that distinction? It is an unpleasant experience.
Baking soda = sodium bicarbonate = a base
Baking powder = a base + a (dry) acid (+ an anti-caking agent)
Baking soda lowers acidity of foods. Baking powder, however, will create air bubbles whenever exposed to moisture. ("Double-acting" versions create a second wave of bubbles after being heated to around 150F. This is actually kind of a Big Deal.)
Baking powder = a base + a (dry) acid (+ an anti-caking agent)
Baking soda lowers acidity of foods. Baking powder, however, will create air bubbles whenever exposed to moisture. ("Double-acting" versions create a second wave of bubbles after being heated to around 150F. This is actually kind of a Big Deal.)
Baking powder has baking soda as an ingredient.
I seem to be the only one on the Internet that likes Coke better with high fructose corn syrup than sugar. I will say that most of the "sugar" coke I've had is from Europe, rather than the Mexican coke (which seems to have a label listing "sugar and/or high fructose corn syrup"). I would describe the corn syrup coke as smoother.
Completely agree on the Mexican Coke.
I don't eat HFCS because of semi-dubious claims as to health.
I don't eat HFCS because I refuse to help the industry that is most to blame for the algae bloom in the Gulf, and I don't believe that government subsidies should be what makes a given industry profitable (outside, say, weapons research, development, and manufacture - but that's an entirely different can of worms that I oppose on an entirely different reasoning).
I don't eat HFCS because I refuse to help the industry that is most to blame for the algae bloom in the Gulf, and I don't believe that government subsidies should be what makes a given industry profitable (outside, say, weapons research, development, and manufacture - but that's an entirely different can of worms that I oppose on an entirely different reasoning).
(I guess you mean "I don't not eat HFCS..." in the first sentence. Substituting "avoid" for "don't eat" might be clearer.)
Personally, I'd like to see Sugar Alcohols get more widely used (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar_alcohol). Sugar alcohols are not metabolized by oral bacteria so they're much better for dental health (and used in many chewing gums today such as Trident). They also have fewer calories and are metabolized slower by the body. That means there's less chance that they'll contribute to obesity (fewer calories) and they have a lower impact on the body's blood sugar levels (with a low glycemic index due to the way it's slowly metabolized).
I'm guessing the reason that they're not widely used would be cost and difficulty. Still, if we could figure out a way to produce sugar alcohols cheaply, we could keep our sweet food while having a meaningful and scientifically proven positive impact on our bodies.
I'm guessing the reason that they're not widely used would be cost and difficulty. Still, if we could figure out a way to produce sugar alcohols cheaply, we could keep our sweet food while having a meaningful and scientifically proven positive impact on our bodies.
Sugar alcohols create a cooling sensation on the tongue, so they aren't appropriate for everything. They've also got somewhat of a stigma from causing digestive problems. Erythritol, which doesn't cause digestive problems, is starting to gain popularity though.
What's the big deal? If people are being "hurt" by HFCS or "Corn Sugar" or whatever you want to call it, then they can avoid eating it - it says right on the label what's in the food. If you drank 10 beers a day it'd probably be harmful as well. We shouldn't be focusing on the "evil" companies, we should be focusing on ourselves and our own diets. We allowed these "evil" companies to grow this big in the first place by willingly and eagerly buying their HFCS saturated products.
(Not that HuffPost said companies are "evil" but that's the commonly held belief among HuffPost readers)
(Not that HuffPost said companies are "evil" but that's the commonly held belief among HuffPost readers)
Why aren't people rally against honey? Because it's "natural".