Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA I'm fascinated by this subject. High Fructose Corn Syrup is used as an alternative to sugar in so many packaged foods today, that you have to really hunt to find foods that don't have High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS). So, is it really a problem? Or is it, as some have posed, politically motivated? Some claim that HFCS is digested and metabolized different in the body than regular sugar. Recently the FDA said 'no' when the 'High Fructose Corn Syrup Association' tried to change the name of the product to 'Corn Sugar.' FDA said that consumers think of sugar as the crystalized, table sugar type of substance and that calling a liquid 'sugar' would be misleading. Would love to hear your thoughts on this subject. My personal story. I enjoy eating peanut butter and jelly on toast once or twice a week for breakfast. It's not the best food in the world, but it has some protein and is a nice way to start the day with a cup of coffee. About 4-5 years ago, noticed that peanut butter, jelly AND bread I was eating all contained HFCS. So, in an effort to convince myself that it would make a difference, I now buy peanut butter, jelly and bread without HFCS. What does it mean? Is it as big of a joke as 'organic' produce and foods that are labeled 'all natural.'?
Originally Posted By ecdc I think Dabob2 really hit the issue in the other thread (though I'm glad you started one in WEs). It's not so much that HFCS is somehow worse for you, it's that it's so much cheaper for companies to buy they can put it in just about everything, making it sweeter and tastier. I mean, who doesn't love sugar? But when I make homemade salsa or homemade pasta sauce, it sure doesn't have sugar in it. The whole point is the natural sugars of the ingredients you use. But tons of salsa or pasta sauce at the store is loaded with HFCS. Food is both deeply cultural and essential to our survival. Our relationship to it is extremely important. But we've started relegating it to an aside; a chore that has to be done. Or that someone else should do. And it should always be amazing, and easy, and cheap.
Originally Posted By Manfried They don't just put it in everything because its cheaper. They've been putting sugar in a whole lot of stuff for a long time. Didn't you know that? I mean sugar was on the ingredients listings for many products decades ago. Now its a different kind of sweetener. Uh, and look up the science of what makes up sugar some time. You might actually be surprised about things. Don't become another one of those shrill "tout the party line" without actually understanding things types that the Internet is populated with so much these days. I finally shut down my Facebook account because of this type of stuff.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Don't become another one of those shrill "tout the party line" without actually understanding things types that the Internet is populated with so much these days.<< You are making a whole lot of assumptions based on the fact that I said some moderate stuff about HFCS. If you'd like to respond to what I actually said instead of the hippie straw man you've invented, be my guest. I haven't said HFCS is worse than sugar. I haven't said what's in HFCS is dangerous. I haven't touted any party line. In fact, I'm really not sure what on earth you think you're responding to.
Originally Posted By MissCandice I thought that the whole reason HFCS is worse than sugar is because they put a crapload in stuff, way more than the amount of sugar they would put in? I have not done any research about it though.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA This is what I'm driving at, ecdc. Writing here 'sugar is sugar - end of story' is just too simplistic for me. Why are people getting so upset about High Fructose Corn Syrup? Just simple hysteria? Because they think it's interesting or cool? Because they're against corn?
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA This particular discussion, essay, paper makes sense to me... <a href="http://thepaleodiet.com/archives/3897" target="_blank">http://thepaleodiet.com/archives/3897</a> It reads in part... <Lets compare sucrose (table sugar) to HFCS. Table sugar is a disaccharide formed by the combination of two simple sugars (monosaccharides), glucose and fructose which are chemically bound together by a single water molecule. Hence sucrose is 50% fructose and 50% glucose. Before we can assimilate sucrose, an enzyme in our guts (sucrase) must break it down into it’s two simple sugars (glucose and fructose). In contrast, HFCS is a simple mixture of glucose and fructose, which unlike sucrose, are not chemically bound to one another by a water molecule. HFCS is typically manufactured in 3 versions: 1) HFCS 42 which is a mixture containing 42% fructose and 53% glucose, 2) HFCS 55 containing 55 % fructose and 42% glucose, and 3) HFCS 90 containing 90% fructose and 8% glucose. Most soft drinks are made with HFCS 55 instead of sucrose because fructose is about twice (1.73 x) as sweet as sucrose. Accordingly, soft drinks manufactured with HFCS require less sugar (and are therefore cheaper) than soft drinks made with sucrose. Starting in the late 70′s and early 80′s the technology (Ion Exclusion Chromatography) to manufacture HFCS economically became widely available and most soft drink and processed food manufacturers jumped on the band wagon, and the U.S. consumption of HFCS increased dramatically from 0 lbs per capita in 1970 to 64 lbs per capita annually in 2000. As of 2008 that number has declined to 53 lbs per capita annually . When consumption of HFCS, sucrose and all other sugars are combined they reached an annual peak in 2000 of 151 lbs per capita in the U.S. That number has dropped to 136 lbs in 2008. Even still, these massive intakes of refined sugars in the U.S. diet directly impact virtually all disease of civilization, because both sucrose and HFCS promote insulin resistance, the physiological mechanism underlying the metabolic syndrome (obesity, hypertension, type 2 diabetes, abnormal cholesterol and blood lipids, acne, gout, and certain cancers among others).> More at the link...
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<thought that the whole reason HFCS is worse than sugar is because they put a crapload in stuff, way more than the amount of sugar they would put in?>> I believe the proper LP term is "BUNG-LOAD". Lets all strive to keep LP consistent!
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost Have we established yet just exactly how much a bung will hold. I think it's important!
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Always glad to provide enlightenment when I can... <a href="http://www.grapestompers.com/bung_sizing_chart.aspx" target="_blank">http://www.grapestompers.com/b...art.aspx</a>
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost Thank god...now I can enter into these bungload conversations knowing what I'm talking about. I wonder if Walt had that chart while he was planning Disneyland?
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA <-- wish some would stuff it up their own high fructose corn syrup filled bungholios.
Originally Posted By CuriousConstance Sugar and high fructose corn syrup are obviously each terrible in their own way, I'm more interested to know if drinking zero calorie artificially sweetened drinks are in any way negative for weight maintenance.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <They've been putting sugar in a whole lot of stuff for a long time.> The difference is both in degree and in kind. Yes, they used to add sugar to a lot of things (at least in the packaged food era, which really took off post WWII.) But because HFCS is much cheaper than sugar, more products are adding it than used to add sugar, and many are adding more of it (i.e. a higher dose of sugar in the form of HFCS than when they used regular sugar.) Go to the supermarket and read the labels sometime. In certain aisles, finding a label without HFCS is as difficult as finding something not labeled "made in China" in Wal-mart. I love Jim's example of the peanut butter and jelly sandwich. If you made your own sandwich with bread, natural peanut butter (which at least most stores carry) and homemade jelly - which already has sugar, of course - would you then go to the sugar bowl and sprinkle EXTRA sugar on it? That's what the food industry has done FOR you, without most people even realizing it, by adding sugar in the form of HFCS to so many things.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Is it as big of a joke as 'organic' produce and foods that are labeled 'all natural.'?> "Natural" on a label means absolutely nothing. "Organic" actually has fairly strict standards, so that's what to look for if it's important to you - though with certain items it's debatable whether they're any healthier, or at least healthier enough to justify the price.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>I'm more interested to know if drinking zero calorie artificially sweetened drinks are in any way negative for weight maintenance.<< <a href="http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/are-artificial-sweeteners-safe/" target="_blank">http://www.sciencebasedmedicin...rs-safe/</a> Take a read at what the good folks at Science-based Medicine have to say. Their verdict: all the hand-wringing over artificial sweeteners is misplaced. It appears to be safe. Now, that doesn't mean it's great for weight maintenance. Too often people chug a Diet Coke along with a double cheeseburger and fries. But if you like the taste and you track your calories, there's probably not much wrong with enjoying a diet soda.
Originally Posted By ecdc And here's a great article on HFCS from the same website. <a href="http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/high-fructose-corn-syrup/" target="_blank">http://www.sciencebasedmedicin...n-syrup/</a>
