General Discussions > Health, Fitness, Nutrition, and Medicine
HFCS to Corn Sugar "RAGE!!" Ensues.
Skepdad:
--- Quote from: superdave on Apr 19, 2012, 02:57:57 PM ---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?
--- End quote ---
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:
--- Quote from: Skepdad on Apr 19, 2012, 10:47:56 PM ---
--- Quote from: superdave on Apr 19, 2012, 02:57:57 PM ---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?
--- End quote ---
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?
--- End quote ---
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:
--- Quote from: lonely moa on Apr 20, 2012, 04:17:31 AM ---
--- Quote from: Skepdad on Apr 19, 2012, 10:47:56 PM ---
--- Quote from: superdave on Apr 19, 2012, 02:57:57 PM ---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?
--- End quote ---
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?
--- End quote ---
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).
--- End quote ---
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.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version