Goodbye 'HFCS'! Hello 'Corn Sugar'!

[Joshua_me]

^ They got to him.

 

[fetaby]

Sucrose is basically the same

already practically the same

But you can't say they are the same... either something is the same or it is different.

 

[thermodynamics]

But you can't say they are the same... either something is the same or it is different.

True, they are different molecules, but the difference is meaningless for the purpose of metabolysis. Fruits often have glucose-fructose imbalances to begin with, just like HFCS.

 

[jasoncrew03]

If someone gave you an enema, we could fit you in a matchbox.

.....He's right.... so.... yeah.

 

[frankfrank]

Who cares if it's easier to say? How often has High Fructose Corn Syrup come up in your everyday conversation in the past decade or two?

It's come up plenty of times in my conversations in recent years - always for a good reason.

 

[hotatlboi]

OK...Time to bring some facts into the (not so rational) discussion.

Meet the saccharides ("sweet' molecules): glucose, fructose, and sucrose.

Glucose is a monosaccharide (one sweet molecule). Same with fructose.

Sucrose (table sugar) is made up of one glucose molecule and one fructose molecule joined by a water molecule. That's why it's called a DIsaccharide (two "sweet" molecules). Sucrose is basically the same as HFCS-50% without the water molecule. HFCS is usually made as HFCS-42% and HFCS-55%. So HFCS is already practically the same as sucrose. Fructose-Glucose imbalances (other than 50%) are common in fruits.

The first step in metabolysis of sucrose is to break the sucrose apart yielding one glucose molecule, one sucrose molecule and one water molecule. HFCS effectively saves a step.

Thank you for your rationality.

The simple fact is that if HFCS were really a poison or whatever people make of it, everyone would be dead by now.

If you've shopped in a supermarket in the last 20 years, you've eaten plenty of it.

Now I'm not a chemist so I'm not going to claim I know what is better, but clearly HFCS is not any worse than say choosing regular foods over organic or "all-natural" foods.

 

[hotatlboi]

Wow...what??

Or, everyone would already be suffering whatever terrible outcome is supposed to result from it's consumption.

Sorry, not really informed on what that terrible outcome is supposed to be.

 

[hotatlboi]

Do all smokers die from lung cancer?

No, but a much higher percentage of people suffer from lung cancer who are smokers.

I'm not aware of any evidence at all that says people who consume HFCS suffer more negative consequences than those who eat other sugars.

 

[frankfrank]

Or, everyone would already be suffering whatever terrible outcome is supposed to result from it's consumption.

Sorry, not really informed on what that terrible outcome is supposed to be.

I actively avoid buying any processed foods which list HFCS as an ingredient - and I consider that the biggest factor in my success in losing about 20kg of weight.

One has to be careful, and I still get trapped sometimes. One does NOT expect to find it in applesauce as the second ingredient, but I've had that happen (and I threw it away). One brand of bread which has a very friendly sounding name - it might be Healthy Choice - has HFCS in it...

HFCS is not poisonous in the way that TOXINS are - it won't cause organ failure, food poisoning, etc. However, some people say that it may contribute to diabetes. And diabetes can of course cause these types of problems.

 

[hotatlboi]

Oh. Did you miss the memo on obesity rates?

Is there any evidence that HFCS causes obesity at a higher rate than other sugars? I haven't seen any.

Obesity afaik is caused by eating too much or eating unhealthy foods. You will get fat if you consume large amounts of regular sugar too.

The debate is whether HFCS is worse as a substitute for regular sugar. I haven't seen any conclusive argument showing this to be the case.

 

[hotatlboi]

Ok I did a google search to look up studies on this and I did find evidence that some studies has shown HFCS causes more fat increase than sucrose. So perhaps I was just uninformed on this issue.

For example:

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

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20219526

 

[hotatlboi]

Yes.

Ok, funny that I had never seen those studies before though. This argument comes up a lot seemingly but people just argue back and forth. Not sure why when it's so easy to find some objective science on the issue.

Are you familiar with corn subsidization?

Yes, we produce more corn than is demanded, so the farmers look for other ways to use it.

 

[fetaby]

Obesity afaik is caused by eating too much or eating unhealthy foods. You will get fat if you consume large amounts of regular sugar too.

Weight gain is caused by the body storing food as fat rather than metabolizing it and passing it off as waste. It's true about the too much and unhealthy part, but moreso if the foods you eat are out of balance for your bodies nutritional requirement.

Eating only one type of food causes this, carb, protein, or fat.

 

[fetaby]

Ok, funny that I had never seen those studies before though. This argument comes up a lot seemingly but people just argue back and forth. Not sure why when it's so easy to find some objective science on the issue.

Because while it's being debated, the profits are still growing.

 

[gsdx]

I'm not aware of any evidence at all that says people who consume HFCS suffer more negative consequences than those who eat other sugars.

Then why are so many people avoiding it, and why is the name being changed?

It's like reduced sodium products. Consumers are beginning to wise up.

 

[ANGEL_FCK]

Indeed. Sugar is natural. HFCS is artificial. The body doesn't know how to process it.

I'm sorry, but this is just wrong.
If your body didn't know how to process it, then it would come out exactly the same as it came in. It also would'nt have any effect on you.

HFCS is bad because it is processed by your body. But the fructose in it doesn't differ from "natural" fructose. Both of them are bad for you. The difference is that the natural amount of fructose in fruit is always accompanied by dietary fibre. In juices and HFCS this is not the case.

So even if your jam is sweetened by "natural fruit juices" you should also be careful, because it might have a fructose level that is just as high as with "artificially sweetened" stuff. And a high fructose level has a lot of negative effects on your body. (Similar to alcohol or white sugar.) (Glucose works quite different and isn't as dangerous in moderate amounts.)

 

[gsdx]

I'm sorry, but this is just wrong.
If your body didn't know how to process it, then it would come out exactly the same as it came in. It also would'nt have any effect on you.

I was just repeating something I'd read here in another discussion about the stuff. I might have read it incorrectly, but it pops up in any discussion about HFSC.

 

[mega]

This is a lecture form the University of California Medical Center in San Francisco. This is long but very interesting, and it addresses some of the points brought up in this tread.

 

[ANGEL_FCK]

I was just repeating something I'd read here in another discussion about the stuff. I might have read it incorrectly, but it pops up in any discussion about HFSC.

I know.
Unfortunately this is something that gets repeated over and over again.

Don't get me wrong. HFCS is awful. But the reasoning of some people that try to explain WHY it is, is extremely illogical.