Stabilator From United States of America, joined Nov 2010, 374 posts, RR: 0 Posted (4 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1858 times:
Hello folks
Recently, I've been watching quite a few health documentaries on Netflix, and as a result, I'm attempting to consume less high fructose corn syrup. My question is this: how is HFCS different to regular sugar? I heard the body processes it in the liver as opposed to the stomach. Is this true? It's obviously processed, but does it lead to a higher risk of developing diabetis over, say, regular sugar (which is also processed)?
Another question I have: Is high fructose corn syrup addictive? If scientists discover it is addictive, and because it's found in a majority of processed foods, I'd imagine there would be quite a legal battle against companies that market it to young children. I used to occasionally enjoy Kemp's chocolate milk, which contains high fructose corn syrup. I switched recently to occasionally having a brand of chocolate milk without hfcs. I didn't enjoy the taste as much.
If it is a big heath concern, why isn't there more push back against it? Is it becuse the corn industry is in bed with the government?
Hopefully someone can help explain to me why it's so bad to consume. Thanks!
tugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 3557 posts, RR: 4 Reply 1, posted (4 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1849 times:
Quoting Stabilator (Thread starter): Recently, I've been watching quite a few health documentaries on Netflix, and as a result, I'm attempting to consume less high fructose corn syrup. My question is this: how is HFCS different to regular sugar? I heard the body processes it in the liver as opposed to the stomach. Is this true?
Well if you can stand a pretty boring presentation try this (I'm strange, I find this kind of stuff interesting but even I can see it's going bore most people): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM
It's should answer the question of how it is different.
Tugg
everything I have learned I have learned by mistake
Thanks for the link. It's rather late and I only watched a small potion of it, but the fact we have (according to this video) an obesity epidemic is 6 month olds is downright scary! Can't wait to see if they mention whether or not it's addictive.
But regardless of what you think of it.... it's still a sugar. Like our doctors say too much sugar is bad. As for me, I wont touch the stuff, personal decision. And I also refrain from the seemingly endless waves of sugar in our food supply.
I think American society has forgotten that a cookie is supposed to be a special treat and not an actual meal.
pelican From Germany, joined Apr 2004, 2525 posts, RR: 10 Reply 4, posted (4 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 1781 times:
Quoting tugger (Reply 1): Well if you can stand a pretty boring presentation try this (I'm strange, I find this kind of stuff interesting but even I can see it's going bore most people): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM
It's should answer the question of how it is different.
Thanks a lot for posting this link! The presentation is a real eye opener.
Thanks for the links, I look forward to going over them.
I'd be interested to know if you guys think food in America, and our health problems, puts us at some sort of disadvantage over other countries (think Japan, where they tend to east small, nutritional meals).
Just how much influence do the food companies have over our government? I've heard the corn industry has a lot of pull.
luckyone From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 1409 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (4 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 1700 times:
Quoting Stabilator (Thread starter): how is HFCS different to regular sugar? I heard the body processes it in the liver as opposed to the stomach. Is this true?
The main difference is that when sucrose (aka table sugar) is broken down it is heavily regulated with significant mechanisms to stop the breakdown. Sucrose is composed of glucose and fructose. Glucose is actually turned into fructose by this heavily regulated step. HFCS (already being fructose) bypasses this key regulatory step in hexose breakdown, and basically send far more fructose down the pipeline than the body has budgeted for. These products then get turned into more energy than the body needs, and it can be stored in the form of fatty acids (aka fat).
KingairTA From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 338 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (4 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 1698 times:
I think the issue is there just isnt as much physical demanding work any more. A majority of people are behind a desk or operating a piece of machinery. Combine that with traditional meals and of course people are gonna get fat.
Interesting. I though something like that was the case. It's scary that it causes more fat buildup than normal sugar. Is it found in a majority of products today because it's produced at such low costs? If I ventured to guess, table sugar is more expensive because the corn industry isn't substadizing it.
I think you're correct. Our diets today reflect our on-the-go mentality we have as a nation. Its been a long time since I've heard of an emphasis placed on wholesome home-cooked family meals.
Monsanto was actually mentioned in one of the documentaries. It was in regards to their special soybeans that have weed killers (or insecticides, I can't remember) genetically incorporated into the seed. If the farmers were found to keep any of the seed (rather than plant it) Monsanto had a hot line for rival farmers to call. They would then send out an investigative team and take them to court. I guess they're suspicious of the farmers selling seed to someone else.
There was a story about a man, in this documentary, that was being sued by Monsanto because he cleaned excess seed out of famers' fields. If I recall, a number of former Monsanto executives held FDA and other political positions during the Bush administration and the Obama administration (may have been the Clinton admin, I'll have to check).
johnkrist From Sweden, joined Jan 2005, 1282 posts, RR: 6 Reply 12, posted (4 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 1652 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD SUPPORT
I recommend watching Food Inc. I was aware of sugar content in food, but not how much food contains Corn High Fructose Syrup. It's in everything more or less.
But! I rather have small amounts of that, than any synthetic sweetener like aspartam. I swear it will be the next big cause of cancer! It is better to eat small amounts of real sugar, and as FingerLakerAv8r says, it's a treat! Not food...
7D, 17-40 F4 L, 70-200 F2.8 L IS, EF 1.4x II, EF 2x III, Metz 58-AF1
Perhaps in some cases, but I feel they generally contained less sodium, sugar and HFCS than they do today. I'm not thinking wholesome as in mashed potatoes, meatloaf, turkey dinner etc. Rather, more along the lines of an appropriate serving of proteins and a mix of vegetables.
Aittle random, but I was at the grocery store the other day and was going to buy some ramen noodles. I was shocked when I found out there are 800+mg of sodium in a single serving.
Food Inc. was among the documentaries I watched. Like you mentioned, the stuff is in damn near everything processed now. The yogurt I had for breakfast even had HFCS in it, and I think many people tend to view yogurt as a "health food".
ModernArt From United States of America, joined Jun 2003, 324 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (4 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 1587 times:
Quoting Stabilator (Reply 13): I was shocked when I found out there are 800+mg of sodium in a single serving.
That probably happens when you add the flavor packet. I've learned to use 1/2 a packet or less and through in some preheated frozen veggies. I'm not even a broke college student but every now and than a bowl of $.25 Raman noodle soup is pretty darn tasty.
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 14050 posts, RR: 55 Reply 18, posted (4 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 1590 times:
Quoting Stabilator (Thread starter): Recently, I've been watching quite a few health documentaries on Netflix, and as a result, I'm attempting to consume less high fructose corn syrup. My question is this: how is HFCS different to regular sugar? I heard the body processes it in the liver as opposed to the stomach. Is this true? It's obviously processed, but does it lead to a higher risk of developing diabetis over, say, regular sugar (which is also processed)?
I can answer this.
First of all, table sugar (sucrose) is a disaccharide, which means that it is a single molecule made up of two small sugars. One is called glucose and one is fructose. In the stomach and intestines, sucrose is digested by enzymes called disaccharidases into the two component monosaccharides, glucose and fructose.
The pancreas senses glucose (not fructose) and adjusts insulin levels accordingly.
In HFCS, the theory says, the load of already processed fructose is taken up without sensing by the pancreas, causing huge swings in blood sugar. In addition, the first step in the metabolism of glucose is conversion to fructose, so eating a bunch of fructose overwhelms the metabolic system and leads to weight gain.
Here's the problem: the clinical studies don't seem to back it up. While high concentrations of fructose have been shown to be bad, HFCS has only slightly more fructose than glucose. So by the time it is absorbed, it is scarcely different from digested sucrose.
Of course, anti-HFCS people have managed to raise a stink and accuse the AMA, FDA, and AJCN and other such organizations of being in cahoots with the corn growers and refiners associations. But what they haven't shown is solid, repeatable evidence that eating a lot of HFCS is worse than eating a bunch of sugar.
My advice is to avoid ALL sources of concentrated sweets.
dl021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11372 posts, RR: 88 Reply 19, posted (4 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 1518 times:
It's possible for people to eat right, even when on the move. Eating too much crap is not Monsantos fault, any more than a smoker today is the fault of Philip Morris or a car accident is the fault of Ford.
photopilot From Cuba, joined Jul 2002, 2418 posts, RR: 22 Reply 20, posted (4 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 1509 times:
For me, one of the real pleasures of international travel is that I get to drink REAL Coke made with sugar in many other countries. There is a definite difference in taste. Sweeter and smoother to the palate when it's made with real sugar.
Real sugar Coke is also used for dietary reasons during the jewish passover stuff.
pelican From Germany, joined Apr 2004, 2525 posts, RR: 10 Reply 21, posted (4 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 1495 times:
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 18): Here's the problem: the clinical studies don't seem to back it up. While high concentrations of fructose have been shown to be bad, HFCS has only slightly more fructose than glucose. So by the time it is absorbed, it is scarcely different from digested sucrose.
That's what Mr. Lustig (and studies about fructose) says: there is no difference between HFCS and sucrose. Both are equally bad, because both contain high levels of fructose which is causing metabolic syndrome.
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 18): But what they haven't shown is solid, repeatable evidence that eating a lot of HFCS is worse than eating a bunch of sugar.
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 18): My advice is to avoid ALL sources of concentrated sweets.
Of course it isn't Monsanto's fault. I mentioned a legal case involving supposed misuse of their soybean seeds. It's the responsibility of the individual to eat well.
Another thing I hear a lot is how vegetables etc don't fill people up as much as say, a burger. Food Inc and Fat, Sick and, Nearly Dead (two of the few documentaries I watched, both can be found on Netflix) stressed that the opposite is true, and a cup of veggies will fill you up more than a cup of pasta. There are so many misconceptions about food it's mind blowing.
homsar From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 467 posts, RR: 0 Reply 23, posted (4 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 1456 times:
Quoting dl021 (Reply 19): It's possible for people to eat right, even when on the move.
Possible, but often difficult.
Thanks to the massive lobbying of the agribusiness industry, corn is heavily subsidized, which causes junk food/unhealthy food to be cheap, while good stuff is expensive.
It requires close reading of food labels to figure out what you're eating these days, yet for various reasons, people have less time to do so.
On an individual level, any one person absolutely could pay closer attention to the food they eat. Bur when you have a massive obesity epidemic that is affecting younger and younger people (is it the four-year-old's fault that his parents feed him McDonalds every day?), at what point do we accept that there is a systemic problem that is really too difficult to treat on the individual level.
Or, do we just say "to heck with it, not my problem" right up until the day we realize how much it really is our problem (which will be far beyond the point at which it actually became our problem)?
If we get to a point where 50-60% or more of the population is obese (I don't know what the percentage is now, it could already be that high for all I know), who pays the health care costs associated with those issues? Whether it's government-subsidized health care, or private insurance, you can be guaranteed those costs are being passed onto you. Who pays the "accessibility" costs associated with a population where a bunch of people ride around in scooters not because their legs are broken, but because they're too damn heavy to walk? When buildings, furniture, vehciles, etc., all have to be redesigned to accommodate larger people, who pays?
When obesity severely limits a large portion of the population's ability to contribute constructively to society (because there are too many jobs they simply can't do, even if they wanted to), who suffers?
The answer is that everybody in society will face costs, direct or indirect, associated with the obesity epidemic, and dismissing it by saying it's everybody's own fault that they're fat will not actually solve the problem.
dl021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11372 posts, RR: 88 Reply 24, posted (4 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 1430 times:
This problem is definitely one that will be handled best at the individual level, because there is no way to remove all bad things from our diets. Fats, sweeteners, preservative and other factors must be learned about and dealt with by the people who are going to consume them. Half the problem isn't diet but is a sedentary lifestyle that is killing us. Sitting all day in front of screens with limited physical exertion prevents us from burning off the calories and outright poisons we put in our bodies, and what used to be healthy amounts of fats and other nutrition have become too much for the body to burn off and we are an obese nation.
No amount of governments regulation will force people to start exercising, any more than it stopped people from drinking, smoking or doing drugs. Educational a thinning of the herd of people who refuse to exercise and eat right will accomplish the societal and behavioral changes needed to reduce this problem.
I used Monsanto as an example earlier, but the truth is that people...individuals (and in the case of four year olds parents) are gang to have to do better on their own and for the right reasons. Ill lay odds that if insurance companies made it much more expensive for obese people to get insured youd see a decrease in obesity. Provided of course that the lawyers for the morbidly obese didn't make it illegal to charge more for fat people.
Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
25 zhiao: Good stuff is not expensive. A huge bag of mixed greens costs like $4, and a head of lettuce costs $1. Carrots and celerey are much cheaper than any
26 n229nw: Thanks for this great post!!! It's always worth being skeptical not only of processed food, etc., but also of some of the reactions against it. Some
27 Stabilator: Great post Doc, very insightful, and to be honest, not what I was expecting if what you say is true. I do however think big agriculture is in "cahoot
28 DocLightning: Of course they are. I'm not denying that. It's just they aren't in cahoots with several major professional organizations to cover up research finding
29 FingerLakerAv8r: Yes and no. If you research a lot of the natural food websites out there they will list the horrors of aspartame. Do I agree with them? Not totally b
30 johnkrist: Once upon a time Neurosedyne, DDT and tobacco had "No evidence that it is bad to you in any way".
31 tugger: Well that's a silly rule as it could rule out eating anything. Want some pacific halibut? Can you pronounce "Hippoglossus stenolepis"? How about broc
32 FingerLakerAv8r: I dunno what supermarket you go to but I have never seen Latin in the produce aisle. "Apples" are labled as apples and "Broccoli" is labled as brocco
33 okie: Thanks for the insight Doc, I had sort of considered the HFCS to be a problem but then thought how sweetened products have entered our life style. Wh
34 dl021: Whether it's sugar or corn syrup, controlling your caloric intake, ensuring sufficient fiber, protein and other nutrients (info available at .gov as w
35 dl021: Oh...and I'm still convinced that Coke tastes better with real sugar rather than corn syrup and it was all a giant conspiracy by Goizueta to switch fr
36 steeler83: Seriously... And I love the commercials that defend corn syrup. Yeah, tell that to someone who IS a diabetic and who has been one since Ronald Reagen
37 n229nw: That is about as valid as a scientific guideline as deciding what to do today based on the positions of the planets though... Cholecalciferol is Vita
38 DocLightning: Yes. Under conditions that would never occur in a soda can, you can get a few milligrams of methanol. I'd drink a few milligrams of methanol for a do
39 jet-lagged: Well, I can't say HFCS is necessarily not good, but what seems clear to me is: tax-payers have subsidized corn growing in the U.S for decades, so much
40 DocLightning: That's not quite correct. The antibiotics are given to prevent infections. I'm, not aware (although I'm no agricultural expert) of a strong associati
41 geezer: All of this talk about corn syrup just reminded me of a rather humorous incident that I was a witness to, many years ago; There was a trucking company
42 DocLightning: Oh dear... I bet there was an ant issue for a coupla weeks!
43 swissy: Agree, some of your points are right... as to antibiotics... they are used for growth enhancement. Next time you go and buy dog food have a look what
44 DocLightning: Not good dog food! The Kirkland (Costco) brand actually has no corn. Other premium brands (Blue Buffalo, etc.) also don't have corn. If corn or cornm
45 okie: Slightly off topic but petroleum and flammable liquids are required by DOT to have a double valve system, food products do not require a double syste
46 Fly2HMO: IMO this whole issue has been ridiculously overblown as usual thanks to the media fear mongering. I don't buy any of this sensationalistic bullcrap. T
47 Type-Rated: One problem with corn and dogs is that it can trigger allergies in dogs sensitive to corn. Things like itching, constant ear infections and loss of ha
48 johnkrist: Big difference, salt is NaCl regardless of whether it is table salt, sea salt or whatever. It's the same molecule. Carbohydrates is an entirley diffe
49 swissy: Oh we are getting our dog/cat food from our vet... and it is expensive. My point was that corn stuff is pretty much everywhere... sorry I was not cle
50 OzGlobal: HFCS and its ubiquitous presence in foods is, as far as I know, a uniquely American phonomenon. The stuff is toxic. I can smell the sickly sweet stuf
51 Type-Rated: I thought the price of corn was going up because all the ethanol makers want it for a fuel additive? What I would like to know, and hasn't been addres
52 DocLightning: Can you back that up with data? OK, specifically data showing that it is more toxic than sucrose? I am not aware of such data. I'm not pro-HFCS. I'm
53 Fly2HMO: True, and I am aware of that. I was oversimplifying. But as Doc said, there's no concrete evidence that it does anymore harm than "normal" sugar. The
54 johnkrist: It's just very odd that overweight and obesity has doubled since the introduction of HFCS, and no where is the problem as big as in the USA where the
55 dl021: I think other factors are involved...there has been an explosion of electronic media for people to interact with over hte last 15 years that has kept
56 Fly2HMO: It must be pointed out that in Mexico HFCS is not nearly as widespread as in the US. Mexican coke/pepsi use cane sugar. Many other foods that in the
57 DocLightning: No no no no. Let me make this clear: they WILL cause health problems if consumed in excess. I think it's an odd case of coincidence. Look, obesity is
58 johnkrist: The closest kids get to hide and seek today is a game of Counter Strike Absolutely, 1 in 5 is not pretty either, and we have adjusted our sizes accor
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Nov 2010, 374 posts, 
From Germany, joined Apr 2004, 2525 posts, 
From Sweden, joined Jan 2005, 1282 posts, 
From Cuba, joined Jul 2002, 2418 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
