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

[DeepGlue]

A few points, for clarity:

1.


2. Most HFCS is 55/45 or 42/58 fructose/sucrose. So in nearly all cases the only thing separating sugar from HFCS is that one little bond. I still need to consult with a nutritionist, but I would guess that's the first thing your body breaks down, and at that point the sugar is essentially 50/50 HFCS.

3. As far as I know, the research does show that fructose is bad for you.

So. Most people know point 3 but don't know point 2. And there aren't many (if any) well-done studies comparing sucrose directly to 50/50 HFCS. I would love it if a nutritionist could weigh in on point 2, or point out any research directly comparing sucrose to 50/50 HFCS. But this is the story as far as I know.

[jt512]

A few points, for clarity:

1.


2. Most HFCS is 55/45 or 42/58 fructose/sucrose. So in nearly all cases the only thing separating sugar from HFCS is that one little bond. I still need to consult with a nutritionist, but I would guess that's the first thing your body breaks down, and at that point the sugar is essentially 50/50 HFCS.

3. As far as I know, the research does show that fructose is bad for you.

So. Most people know point 3 but don't know point 2. And there aren't many (if any) well-done studies comparing sucrose directly to 50/50 HFCS. I would love it if a nutritionist could weigh in on point 2, or point out any research directly comparing sucrose to 50/50 HFCS. But this is the story as far as I know.

#2 is correct.  The glycosidic bond in sucrose is broken in the small intestine, so, as far as metabolism is concerned, there is no difference between sucrose and a 50/50 mixture of glucose and fructose.

Can you expand a bit on #1?   

[Chew]

A few points, for clarity:

1.

That is an empty, meaningless statement.

[pandamonium]

A few points, for clarity:

1.

That is an empty, meaningless statement.

Yeah, the image is broken for me, too.

[Plastique]

3. As far as I know, the research does show that fructose is bad for you.

What does that mean—could you be more specific?

[lonely moa]

The difference is too small to matter, except that HFCS is sweeter than sucrose, and therefore food manufacturers can use less of it than sucrose to achieve the same sweetness, which most people would consider to be a good thing.

Jay

The difference is that HFCS is much less expensive to add to products.  And the same sweetness is never enough.  I think the evidence that sugar triggers those "I like this... give me more" feelings in the brain.  What a good way to market... I wouldn't want to compare it to tobacco...

[DeepGlue]

Fixed my first point. It's an image comparing glucose, fructose and sucrose, showing that sucrose is just fructose and glucose held together by a tiny little bond.

3. As far as I know, the research does show that fructose is bad for you.

What does that mean—could you be more specific?

To be more specific, from the web and other threads on this board I've picked up that fructose is solidly established to be worse for people than sucrose or glucose. I don't recall specifics. Weight gain? Heart disease? I dunno. I just remember it's worse and I think that comes from more than one independent study. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[DeepGlue]

#2 is correct.  The glycosidic bond in sucrose is broken in the small intestine, so, as far as metabolism is concerned, there is no difference between sucrose and a 50/50 mixture of glucose and fructose.

Good to get some confirmation on that.

But I mean they aren't *exactly* the same thing. It takes some time to break down that bond, and once it's broken they aren't *exactly* fructose and glucose. You're saying that these small differences do in fact mean nothing to your body?

[lonely moa]

Fixed my first point. It's an image comparing glucose, fructose and sucrose, showing that sucrose is just fructose and glucose held together by a tiny little bond.

3. As far as I know, the research does show that fructose is bad for you.

What does that mean—could you be more specific?

To be more specific, from the web and other threads on this board I've picked up that fructose is solidly established to be worse for people than sucrose or glucose. I don't recall specifics. Weight gain? Heart disease? I dunno. I just remember it's worse and I think that comes from more than one independent study. Correct me if I'm wrong.

It contributes to fatty liver disease (Lustig).  Its ubiquitisness contributes to gain in adipose tissue generally, and as I mentioned above, contributes to the overconsumption fo food in general and carbohydrates in particular(Kessler). 

I would guess it is fine in the form of actual fruit, one wouldn't actually be able to eat the number of apples or oranges at one sitting that you can with juice.  When you read from sources like Wrangham about the sort actual fruit that humans in the evolutionary past had available  to them, one gets the ideas that they are not particularly high in fructose or particularly palatable for humans.  Maybe we as a species are not generally well adapted to eat a lot of sweet fruit.

[jt512]

#2 is correct.  The glycosidic bond in sucrose is broken in the small intestine, so, as far as metabolism is concerned, there is no difference between sucrose and a 50/50 mixture of glucose and fructose.

Good to get some confirmation on that.

But I mean they aren't *exactly* the same thing. It takes some time to break down that bond, and once it's broken they aren't *exactly* fructose and glucose. You're saying that these small differences do in fact mean nothing to your body?

The bond is broken almost instantaneously in the intestine, and does not affect the rate of absorption, to the best of my knowledge.  The glycemic index for HFCS-sweetened beverages is not significantly different from that of sucrose.

Jay

[Johnny Slick]

Fixed my first point. It's an image comparing glucose, fructose and sucrose, showing that sucrose is just fructose and glucose held together by a tiny little bond.

3. As far as I know, the research does show that fructose is bad for you.

What does that mean—could you be more specific?

To be more specific, from the web and other threads on this board I've picked up that fructose is solidly established to be worse for people than sucrose or glucose. I don't recall specifics. Weight gain? Heart disease? I dunno. I just remember it's worse and I think that comes from more than one independent study. Correct me if I'm wrong.

It contributes to fatty liver disease (Lustig).  Its ubiquitisness contributes to gain in adipose tissue generally, and as I mentioned above, contributes to the overconsumption fo food in general and carbohydrates in particular(Kessler). 

I would guess it is fine in the form of actual fruit, one wouldn't actually be able to eat the number of apples or oranges at one sitting that you can with juice.  When you read from sources like Wrangham about the sort actual fruit that humans in the evolutionary past had available  to them, one gets the ideas that they are not particularly high in fructose or particularly palatable for humans.  Maybe we as a species are not generally well adapted to eat a lot of sweet fruit.

It makes your face break out (Lonely)! It causes 16 kinds of cancers (Moa) and welcomes in another four into your body with promises of cheap tequila (Is)! It caused the collapse of the Brazilian economy (Full). MSNBC is powered entirely by it and they use it to give libs diabetes (Of). Matt Taubes said it was crap in this one book that he wrote (Hot). Finally, the ancient Chinese had a rule that said "HFC before bed, now you're dead" (Gas).

[Plastique]

It makes your face break out (Lonely)! It causes 16 kinds of cancers (Moa) and welcomes in another four into your body with promises of cheap tequila (Is)! It caused the collapse of the Brazilian economy (Full). MSNBC is powered entirely by it and they use it to give libs diabetes (Of). Matt Taubes said it was crap in this one book that he wrote (Hot). Finally, the ancient Chinese had a rule that said "HFC before bed, now you're dead" (Gas).

Hmm, compelling evidence. I didn't realize it was so serious, and I've thrown out all my strawberries in light of these watertight facts.

[pandamonium]

tell me more about this cheap tequila: is it more or less deadly than HFCS? and how do both compare to cooked milk?

[Halleyscomet/Wakefield]

tell me more about this cheap tequila: is it more or less deadly than HFCS? and how do both compare to cooked milk?

I can't speak for the cheap tequila, but this looks like a promising source of a libation:

http://www.msk-ingredients.com/products.php?pid=33

[Johnny Slick]

tell me more about this cheap tequila: is it more or less deadly than HFCS? and how do both compare to cooked milk?

Well, since neither cheap tequila nor cooked milk cause cancer, it's very comparable. Except to HFCS, which is the anti-cooked milk in terms of not not not preventing cancer.