Topic: HFCS to Corn Sugar "RAGE!!" Ensues.

[Skepdad]

I agree with allowing hfcs to be called corn sugar,  but I hate this issue. 
Yes, we eat too much sugar and hfcs, no hfcs is not poison.  Why do people act like it is all or nothing?

Unless I have misunderstood, the difference between cane sugar and corn sugar (HFCS) is about 5% fructose ...  corn being higher. So, the 5% difference is what makes all the difference?

[lonely moa]

I agree with allowing hfcs to be called corn sugar,  but I hate this issue. 
Yes, we eat too much sugar and hfcs, no hfcs is not poison.  Why do people act like it is all or nothing?

Unless I have misunderstood, the difference between cane sugar and corn sugar (HFCS) is about 5% fructose ...  corn being higher. So, the 5% difference is what makes all the difference?

how many times... the difference is the PRICE.  You want to keep people literally addicted to your product, sugar does it.  HFCS is much cheaper (corn is highly subsidised in the US) than sucrose (sugar cane is no longer subsidised).

[Skepdad]

I agree with allowing hfcs to be called corn sugar,  but I hate this issue. 
Yes, we eat too much sugar and hfcs, no hfcs is not poison.  Why do people act like it is all or nothing?

Unless I have misunderstood, the difference between cane sugar and corn sugar (HFCS) is about 5% fructose ...  corn being higher. So, the 5% difference is what makes all the difference?

how many times... the difference is the PRICE.  You want to keep people literally addicted to your product, sugar does it.  HFCS is much cheaper (corn is highly subsidised in the US) than sucrose (sugar cane is no longer subsidised).

I don't think you're using the word "literally" correctly unless you are asserting that sugar is addictive.

[Belgarath]

I'm pretty sure he is asserting that sugar is addictive.  And that Doctor has claimed that sugar is poison.

You have it correct though.  From memory which may be off a bit, regular sugar is 50% sucrose 50% fructose.  HFCS is 55% fructose 45% sucrose.

Claiming that sugar is addictive is sort of like claiming that water is addictive. 

[superdave]

I dont have time to watch that whole video, but I will read one of his papers and get back to you.  It certainly seems like there is enough evidence to say eating too much sugar is bad for you, but there were a few red flags in the new york times magazine article on this topic.  For one, I never like it when several conditions are linked to the same thing, especially when cancer is one of those things.  The other thing is that there really isn't a lot of research on this topic in humans, most of it is rats.  You can find almost exactly the same type of articles about high glycemic index foods, but fructose is a low glycemic food. 

But perhaps the biggest red flag of them all is the silver bullet concept.  I really doubt anything so complex as the things Lustig discusses can be boiled down so easily to one food.

[DVMKurmes]

Using agave nectar instead of HFCS is kind of silly-depending on the exact source, agave nectar contains from 56 up to 90% fructose. If you like the flavor, that's fine, but it is not "healthier".

[Skepdad]

Table sugar is a disaccharide, sucrose, composed of a molecule of glucose and fructose bound together so it is, in fact, 50/50. HFCS is 55/45 fructose/glucose in their monosaccharides forms. I haven't given it a lot of thought as I have always assumed they were approximately interchangeable within the human body. I didn't know until now that HFCS was composed of the monosaccharide forms. It seems to me that it's possible that they may behave differently upon consumption however the only difference being the cleaving of the disaccharide bond.

I know fructose intolerance is bad but it's my understanding that it doesn't matter what form of fructose is consumed.

It is my opinion that HFCS may be not so good for humans in the amounts we consume them as a society and could be responsible for several heath issues including obesity but I also feel that sucrose is as equally not so good.

[Johnny Slick]

HFCS may even be a little bit worse than table sugar; the science is still not 100% clear on the subject. I'm sure that the quantity consumed of either HFCS or cane sugar is the biggest issue, not the 10% difference in fructose between the one and the other.

[Belgarath]

HFCS may even be a little bit worse than table sugar; the science is still not 100% clear on the subject. I'm sure that the quantity consumed of either HFCS or cane sugar is the biggest issue, not the 10% difference in fructose between the one and the other.

Pretty much this ^

The allegation though is that it's addictive.  I don't know that I buy that just yet.

[superdave]

HFCS may even be a little bit worse than table sugar; the science is still not 100% clear on the subject. I'm sure that the quantity consumed of either HFCS or cane sugar is the biggest issue, not the 10% difference in fructose between the one and the other.

Pretty much this ^

The allegation though is that it's addictive.  I don't know that I buy that just yet.

well the science is pretty strong that it is terrible for rats.  it's just hard to extrapolate from there with a definitive answer. 

[Belgarath]

HFCS may even be a little bit worse than table sugar; the science is still not 100% clear on the subject. I'm sure that the quantity consumed of either HFCS or cane sugar is the biggest issue, not the 10% difference in fructose between the one and the other.

Pretty much this ^

The allegation though is that it's addictive.  I don't know that I buy that just yet.

well the science is pretty strong that it is terrible for rats.  it's just hard to extrapolate from there with a definitive answer.

Yep, but then chocolate is horrible for dogs.

[Johnny Slick]

IIRC, extrapolating to body mass, the amount of chocolate that a dog consumes that makes it "bad" for them would not be good for a human either.

[♫♪ FX ♪♫]

      Food, if only science could answer the questions about it.

[Plastique]

IIRC, extrapolating to body mass, the amount of chocolate that a dog consumes that makes it "bad" for them would not be good for a human either.

Really? I thought they had a specific intolerance to theobromine (whereas humans can process it quite readily).

[Johnny Slick]

That may be the case as well (I'm just recalling stuff, OKAY!?), but it shouldn't be really surprising if a 5-pound dog eats a 10-ounce chocolate bar and then barfs all over the place. That would be like a human eating something like 19 pounds of chocolate in one sitting, which I'm pretty sure is going to have a very detrimental effect.