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.
zhiao From United States of America, joined Jan 2011, 292 posts, RR: 0 Reply 25, posted (4 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 1466 times:
Quoting homsar (Reply 23): 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.
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 processed snack. Water is cheaper than any sugary drink. Meats purchased at store are cheaper per ounce than fast food by a factor of 5.
n229nw From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 1746 posts, RR: 43 Reply 26, posted (4 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 1442 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.
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.
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 of the rhetoric reminds me of the ridiculous anti-vaccine people I am always bumping into...
I'm sure Monsanto is evil, and I'm sure there is lots of deviousness in the food industry, but that doesn't inherently mean that any processed ingredient (or genetically engineered ingredient) is going to kill you. In fact, for example, as opposed to HFCS, which is bad for you by virtue of being sugar:
Quoting johnkrist (Reply 12): aspartam. I swear it will be the next big cause of cancer!
there is pretty much no evidence that Aspartame is bad for you in any way at all.
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 "cahoots" with the government, but I'll have to look into it to confirm my beliefs. The corn industry is massive; I'm sure they have major pull in D.C.
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 14050 posts, RR: 55 Reply 28, posted (4 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 1409 times:
Quoting Stabilator (Reply 27):
I do however think big agriculture is in "cahoots" with the government, but I'll have to look into it to confirm my beliefs. The corn industry is massive; I'm sure they have major pull in D.C.
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 findings.
FingerLakerAv8r From United States of America, joined May 2011, 259 posts, RR: 0 Reply 29, posted (4 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 1357 times:
Quoting n229nw (Reply 26): there is pretty much no evidence that Aspartame is bad for you in any way at all.
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 but if you look at the chemical make up of the stuff...
Aspartame is a methyl ester of the dipeptide of the natural amino acids L-aspartic acid and L-phenylalanine. Under strongly acidic or alkaline conditions, aspartame may generate methanol by hydrolysis. Under more severe conditions, the peptide bonds are also hydrolyzed, resulting in the free amino acids.
I go by a simple theory. If a 6 year old has trouble pronouning the ingredients it's probably best to put it back on the shelf and walk away.
Quoting dl021 (Reply 24): 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.
Now we're going from lifestyle to social and economical influences. The rate of obesity is highest in the Southern United States and that same area also has some of the poorest areas in our country. When you get your assistance every month you stock up with whatever is cheapest. And what is cheaper? Packaged and processed foods.
Case in point. I looked online for the average cost of fresh chicken breasts in my region. It came to about 2.99/lb. Then I looked up chicken nuggets and the average was about 2.59/lb. 10 pounds of chicken nuggets costs 25.90 to the 29.90 for fresh chicken. When cost is the driving force 4 bucks saved is all the money in the world.
I live in a very rural area and I see this unfold every month at the supermarket and warehouse stores. I see families stock up on products loaded with sugar, preservatives, sodium and a multitude of different additives because it is cheaper and they can store it.
Quoting zhiao (Reply 25): 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 processed snack. Water is cheaper than any sugary drink. Meats purchased at store are cheaper per ounce than fast food by a factor of 5.
I have a few issues with this statement. First and foremost is spoilage. When it comes to fresh produce your window for consumption is limited. Second, anything healthy can be made unhealthy. After we get the lettuce and carrots we grab the salad dressing. What do we so with our meats? Ketchup, mustart, mayo, A-1, marinades.... the list goes on an on. I am sure you will be hard pressed to find people buying healthy foods without adding condiments to their shopping cart.
Lets face it. American society is addicted to fast, cheap and easy.
tugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 3557 posts, RR: 4 Reply 31, posted (4 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 1285 times:
Quoting FingerLakerAv8r (Reply 29): I go by a simple theory. If a 6 year old has trouble pronouning the ingredients it's probably best to put it back on the shelf and walk away.
Well that's a silly rule as it could rule out eating anything. Want some pacific halibut? Can you pronounce "Hippoglossus stenolepis"? How about broccoli: "Brassica oleracea Botrytis cymosa"? An apple? You have to be say "Malus domestica". The fact that ingredients list Latin names for most things becasue they haven't developed "common" names or the fact that companies like to have unique trademarkable names for their product does not mean they are bad for you. I insist that my kids eat Brassica oleracea Botrytis cymosa all the time (and fortunately they like it).
Sad thing is DDT is not as bad as it is made out to be, it is a very effective at reducing mosquito populations and therefore reducing incidence of malaria in regions where it is a problem. But because of the horrendous OVER-application of it by farmers in the 50's and 60's it has been banned by many countries and cannot be used for control purposes anymore becasue it cannot be funded. In fact there are ongoing efforts to remove it's ban and allow its use and funding thereof.
Tugg
everything I have learned I have learned by mistake
FingerLakerAv8r From United States of America, joined May 2011, 259 posts, RR: 0 Reply 32, posted (4 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 1268 times:
Quoting tugger (Reply 31): Well that's a silly rule as it could rule out eating anything. Want some pacific halibut? Can you pronounce "Hippoglossus stenolepis"? How about broccoli: "Brassica oleracea Botrytis cymosa"? An apple? You have to be say "Malus domestica". The fact that ingredients list Latin names for most things becasue they haven't developed "common" names or the fact that companies like to have unique trademarkable names for their product does not mean they are bad for you. I insist that my kids eat Brassica oleracea Botrytis cymosa all the time (and fortunately they like it
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 broccoli
But screw pacific halibut. I hate halibut no matter what you call it.
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.
When I was young Coke came in a 7oz bottle and you bought a 6 pack, it was a special event to have one.
Now Soft drinks come in 12oz cans and come in a 12 & 24 packs, not to mention 20oz to 2liter bottles and is served up from breakfast to dinner and snacks in between.
The interesting question would be what would be the increase in consumption per person of soft drinks over the last few decades not to even mention other snack foods.
dl021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11372 posts, RR: 88 Reply 34, posted (4 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 1204 times:
Whether it's sugar or corn syrup, controlling your caloric intake, ensuring sufficient fiber, protein and other nutrients (info available at .gov as well as other websites) and limiting the fat and low-value foods (foods with lots of calories for little nutritional benefit.... .i.e. twinkies, sweetened drinks, white bread, etc) and remember that everything you eat is your responsiibility (so don't eat the baked potato loaded with crap just because it's being served...ask for something else or modify it yourself).
Burn more than you take in, engage in purposeful exercise every day ..... 30 to 40 minutes of cardio plus strength training isn't that difficult....walk two miles and do four or five sets of pushups and situps and some sort of resistance training.....that's 45 minutes worth of work and you can do it at the house without joining a gym or paying some quack for pills that make you burn fat... ...do all that and occasionally have a coke or fried chicken.
I keep seeing people looking for a culprit beyond themselves in this thing....high fructose corn syrup, fatty foods from McDonalds, moms apple pie...you can eat that stuff, in moderation, occasionally, if you burn it off and stay disciplined. Our society is a free one..you're free to overindulge and play video games after you sit at your desk all day...but don't blame anyone or anything else for your condition if you're fat, unless you're that 4 year old who is morbidly obese because your parents don't know how to take care of you.... in which case I'm all for giving them a ticket and making them learn how to not put their child at risk in this way.
dl021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11372 posts, RR: 88 Reply 35, posted (4 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 1200 times:
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 from sugar to a cheaper corn syrup in the formula for Coca Cola that propelled him to roll out New Coke back in the 80s. That and switching to plastic bottles instead of glass must have saved them money, but it's still better wiith sugar in glass.
steeler83 From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 8524 posts, RR: 22 Reply 36, posted (4 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 1159 times:
Quoting FingerLakerAv8r (Reply 3): I think American society has forgotten that a cookie is supposed to be a special treat and not an actual meal.
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's FIRST Presidential term!
Do not bring stranger girt into your room. The stranger girt is dangerous, it will hurt your life.
n229nw From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 1746 posts, RR: 43 Reply 37, posted (4 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 1149 times:
Quoting FingerLakerAv8r (Reply 29): I go by a simple theory. If a 6 year old has trouble pronouning the ingredients it's probably best to put it back on the shelf and walk away.
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 Vitamin D. Whereas "lead" is easy to pronounce.
And as for "natural" stuff: arsenic and cyanides are 100% natural.
Quoting johnkrist (Reply 30): Once upon a time Neurosedyne, DDT and tobacco had "No evidence that it is bad to you in any way".
Difference is that Aspartame has been tested to death in study after study after study specifically looking to see if it is dangerous...
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 14050 posts, RR: 55 Reply 38, posted (4 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 1143 times:
Quoting FingerLakerAv8r (Reply 29): Aspartame is a methyl ester of the dipeptide of the natural amino acids L-aspartic acid and L-phenylalanine. Under strongly acidic or alkaline conditions, aspartame may generate methanol by hydrolysis. Under more severe conditions, the peptide bonds are also hydrolyzed, resulting in the free amino acids.
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 dollar. It will have no effect. Methanol toxicity is dose-dependent, and a miniscule quantity (mg amounts) will not be toxic. And you wouldn't want to drink that drink because it would no longer be sweet, anyway.
Quoting photopilot (Reply 20): Real sugar Coke is also used for dietary reasons during the jewish passover stuff.
During passover, corn is considered non-kosher for Passover. Now, that is very odd because corn is a new-world crop; God never knew about corn. But Orthodox Jews love making ridiculous restrictions for the sheer, unadulterated hell of it (I may be Jewish, but that never stopped me from being a raging anti-semite!), so corn is included as "wheat."
Similar absurdity. Commandment: "Thou shall not seethe kid in the milk of its mother." OK, fair enough. Don't mix meat and milk. So... why does poultry count as "meat" for those purposes? It does. Not only that, but once a dish has touched either milk or meat, it is contaminated for the rest of its existence.
jet-lagged From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 797 posts, RR: 0 Reply 39, posted (3 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 926 times:
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 more corn is produced than would be under an undistorted economic model, all that corn has to go somewhere, and as a reult some unnatural outlets with humans as the consuming mechanism have deveoped.
One of the biggest if not the biggest fate for that corn is HFCS, which is very sweet, virtually flavorless, easy to ship and process, and for which a large infrastucture now exists for its use. But it is quite the process to convert corn into HFCS and the more I have learned about that the more I've decided HFCS is to be minimized in my diet.
Another outlet for all that corn is warm sounding 'corn-fed beef'. Cows are ruminants and evolved eating grasses, not corn. Eating all that corn they will get very sick. So they are given antibiotics to keep them from dying before they are slaughtered. But that is another story . . . .
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 14050 posts, RR: 55 Reply 40, posted (3 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 908 times:
Quoting jet-lagged (Reply 39):
Another outlet for all that corn is warm sounding 'corn-fed beef'. Cows are ruminants and evolved eating grasses, not corn. Eating all that corn they will get very sick. So they are given antibiotics to keep them from dying before they are slaughtered. But that is another story . . . .
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 association between corn feed and bacterial infections.
The trouble with prophylactic antibiotics is that they only breed resistance. Prophylactic antibiotics do NOT decrease the risk of infection in any clinical study in humans and I'd be shocked if any other mammal was any different.
To go back to the OP, I maintain again that ALL concentrated sweets are bad for you. I do wonder...if we stopped corn subsidies, would we switch to cane and beet sugar? Strikes me that the demand for cane and beet sugar would increase, but very little cane is grown in the USA, so the price would also go up.
geezer From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 715 posts, RR: 1 Reply 41, posted (3 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 882 times:
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 back in the 60's and 70's that hauled corn syrup; they had really nice trucks, and all of their tank trailers said "Corn Syrup" in 4 ft high letters from end to end. Anyway, one night I was coming out of Michigan, heading to southern Ohio, and I came up behind one of these corn syrup tankers; ( this happened years before CB radios)
As I caught up to this guy, I could see that his tank trailer had a really big leak in it; there was a solid stream of corn syrup, at least as big as the diameter of a coke bottle, coming out of a hole, or maybe a bad valve. The stuff was so thick that the wind didn't blow it around like it would a petroleum product. The guy was laying a 4 inch wide trail of corn syrup on the highway ! I tried flashing my lights to get the guy to pull over, but I guess he was in a big hurry, because he never did pull over. When I first spotted this happening, we were actually north of Toledo, Ohio, and I was still behind him when we were south of Dayton ! ( over 150 miles )
I often wondered what happened when he reached his unloading point, and he found his tank was almost empty; I should add, tank trailers built for hauling some things, like gasoline, diesel fuel, etc are divided into compartments, usually 5 or 6 separate compartments; other tank trailers , ( such as those built for corn syrup, and other heavy, thick stuff, are all one big open compartment, mainly because this thick stuff doesn't "slosh" back and forth when you start out and stop.
If that truck had been hauling any petro product, he would have been empty in just a few miles; even with corn syrup, I'll bet that driver had a damn near empty trailer when he got to where he was going. ( Not to mention all the cars who drove through all that sticky, gooey syrup on the highway !
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 14050 posts, RR: 55 Reply 42, posted (3 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 882 times:
Quoting geezer (Reply 41): If that truck had been hauling any petro product, he would have been empty in just a few miles; even with corn syrup, I'll bet that driver had a damn near empty trailer when he got to where he was going. ( Not to mention all the cars who drove through all that sticky, gooey syrup on the highway !
Oh dear... I bet there was an ant issue for a coupla weeks!
swissy From Switzerland, joined Jan 2005, 1711 posts, RR: 6 Reply 43, posted (3 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 829 times:
Quoting jet-lagged (Reply 39):
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 more corn is produced than would be under an undistorted economic model, all that corn has to go somewhere, and as a reult some unnatural outlets with humans as the consuming mechanism have deveoped.
One of the biggest if not the biggest fate for that corn is HFCS, which is very sweet, virtually flavorless, easy to ship and process, and for which a large infrastucture now exists for its use. But it is quite the process to convert corn into HFCS and the more I have learned about that the more I've decided HFCS is to be minimized in my diet.
Another outlet for all that corn is warm sounding 'corn-fed beef'. Cows are ruminants and evolved eating grasses, not corn. Eating all that corn they will get very sick. So they are given antibiotics to keep them from dying before they are slaughtered. But that is another story . . . .
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 is in there... delicious corn... why? what does a dog have to do with corn? nothing but it is a cheap filler product. Corn is cheap to produce and in my opinion over used over here in North America and we as a society pay for it...
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 14050 posts, RR: 55 Reply 44, posted (3 months 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 809 times:
Quoting swissy (Reply 43): 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 is in there... delicious corn... why? what does a dog have to do with corn? nothing but it is a cheap filler product. Corn is cheap to produce and in my opinion over used over here in North America and we as a society pay for it...
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 cornmeal is part of your pet's food, change brands. So sayeth my vet, my friend who is a vet, and pretty much everyone I know who knows anything about dogs and cats.
okie From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 2069 posts, RR: 4 Reply 45, posted (3 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 754 times:
Quoting geezer (Reply 41): ( such as those built for corn syrup, and other heavy, thick stuff, are all one big open compartment, mainly because this thick stuff doesn't "slosh" back and forth when you start out and stop.
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 system. I saw a similar situation with a milk transport tanker not to long ago.
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 44): If corn or cornmeal is part of your pet's food, change brands.
Cat had issues and Vet recommended removing corn from pets diet. Here is a clue corn filled cat food (dry) $3.50 without $12.50.
Back to corn, how about frying about a pound of corn meal (about 10cents) then sell it at the store as Tostito's or Nature's Natural Sun Chips for $3.79 a pound. Now there is a bit of a mark-up.
Fly2HMO From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 46, posted (3 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 748 times:
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. The way I see it eating too much HFCS is just as hazardous as eating refined and heavily processed table salt vs natural sea salt. Eating too much of either will kill you in the long run either way. This should be a no brainer.
Type-Rated From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 3664 posts, RR: 23 Reply 47, posted (3 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 722 times:
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 hair can all be related to corn in the food.
I'd be very careful with Blue Buffalo dog food. While they tout it as being all natural and all ingredients grown in the US, there have been dogs that have had severe allergic reactions to it. True, no corn, no soy, no wheat. But what IS in the food making the dogs allergic to it? Well, Blue Buffalo is a contract food company. They just submit their recipe to another company that makes the food for them. There is no way that BB knows exactly what is in their food. They have already had a couple of recalls for "items in the food which are not on the labeling information". After seeing some dogs with pancreaitis and kidney problems my vet recommends her clients not feed BB to their dogs. After reading the nutritional values of BB, I think it's too "hot" of a dog food.
Back to the subject at hand:
I have been avoiding HFCS or now just called "corn sugar" for a few years now. And it is in everything. I like English Muffins with my breakfast, and sure enough I read the label and there it was HFCS! I've since switched brands. I also drink Mexican Coke, and lost a few pounds ever since switching over to it.
I think that we see a lot of overweight teens not only because of HFCS in soft drinks, but also these days there are soft drink machines in schools! I'm appalled by that. When I was growing up such a thing never would have been allowed. And with parents working more often I think rather than cook a full meal at night, some parents just bring home some fast food a few nights a week, which also contributes to the problem.
Fly North Central Airlines..The route of the Northliners!
johnkrist From Sweden, joined Jan 2005, 1282 posts, RR: 6 Reply 48, posted (3 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 713 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD SUPPORT
Quoting Fly2HMO (Reply 46): The way I see it eating too much HFCS is just as hazardous as eating refined and heavily processed table salt vs natural sea salt.
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 different thing with long and short molecules, where some cant be broken down by our body and some break down easily.
7D, 17-40 F4 L, 70-200 F2.8 L IS, EF 1.4x II, EF 2x III, Metz 58-AF1
swissy From Switzerland, joined Jan 2005, 1711 posts, RR: 6 Reply 49, posted (3 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 706 times:
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 44): 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 cornmeal is part of your pet's food, change brands. So sayeth my vet, my friend who is a vet, and pretty much everyone I know who knows anything about dogs and cats.
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 clear enough. Corn or part of corn stuff is being used way too much and it causes issues everywhere and the main reason for that is it is cheap to produce... but it cost us way more on the other end..
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.
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 stuff just walking down the street in NYC, ouzing out of bakeries and fast food joints.
Why? Simple. Big corn agriculture lobby in the US producing food (corn) noone wants to consume, being paid subsidies to grow and then finding bizzare and inefficient uses for the surplus production: HFCS... A toxic cycle of business interests in cohorts with political lobbies, more money changing hands and the public good sacrificed in the process...
When all's said and done, there'll be more said than done.
Type-Rated From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 3664 posts, RR: 23 Reply 51, posted (3 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 671 times:
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 addressed yet is why is HFCS a uniquely American problem? Why does Coke only use it here in the U.S. and not anywhere else? Sugar is just as expensive everywhere else, isn't it?
Fly North Central Airlines..The route of the Northliners!
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 14050 posts, RR: 55 Reply 52, posted (3 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 663 times:
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 just pro-science. When someone can show me data that HFCS is worse for you than sucrose in similar quantities (in humans, not rats), believe me, I'll lead the parade against it.
Fly2HMO From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 53, posted (3 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 643 times:
Quoting johnkrist (Reply 48):
Big difference, salt is NaCl regardless of whether it is table salt, sea salt or whatever. It's the same molecule.
Carbohydrates is an entirely different thing with long and short molecules, where some cant be broken down by our body and some break down easily.
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. They both taste sweet. They both can (potentially) cause health problems if consumed in excess. Whether one is significantly more harmful than the other has yet to be seen, and from what I sounds like from legitimate research, there really isn't anything to back up the sensationalist claims.
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 consumption is bigger than anywhere else in the world. 2010 33.8% of the US population was obese, + all those that are only overweight. These numbers can't be found anywhere else in the world, the Mexico ranks a good 2nd with 24% and UK 3rd with 22% which is far below US levels.
7D, 17-40 F4 L, 70-200 F2.8 L IS, EF 1.4x II, EF 2x III, Metz 58-AF1
dl021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11372 posts, RR: 88 Reply 55, posted (3 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 590 times:
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 more kids and adults stationary in their rooms in front of screens, more people drive or ride everywhere and fewer parents allow their children to roam around their neighborhoods unsupervised, all of which limits the physical exercise the average person gets daily.
Diet also plays a huge role. Twenty years ago chain restaurants sought to compete with each other not so much on price as with presentation and portions making it the norm to see huge portions and 3000 calorie salads (see eat this not that for some examples). In homes across our nation over the last 30 to 40 years average portions on meal sizes increased with wealth in this nation and we ate richer and fattier foods than ever before, compounding that with the preservatives and other unnatural substances present in our diet that impact our energy and moods. Not trying to sound holistic or organic...I'm not....organic foods wont feed the world....crop yields are going to need to be bigger than ever to feed our population as it continues to grow.
Further the choices we make with our foods up and down the supply and demand chain impact us. We grow and eat more corn than anyone else.. as prepared and served....it's a starch. i.e. refined sugar... .forget whether it's high fructose or anything else...it's high calorie with little protein or fiber benefit. it's a filler food. Important for calories and variety, but not so much for healthy eating if we rely on it too much.
Seriously...we're all discussing something that's fairly simple....figure out how to get everyone outside and moving around for an hour or two each day and eat proper sized portions of the right kinds of foods and we'll drop weight and be healthier...it won't cure all the ills in the world, but it'll reduce the risk of a bunch of them....I'd rather have to figure out how to grow enough food and draw enough water to feed 330 million healthy people than continue to spend vast sums on trying to repair or simply mitigate damage caused by unhealthy habits on the number we have today.
To be fair it's not a problem contained solely in the US....Europe is getting fatter too. Rich nations tend to get fat. We should know enough now to stop it...ourselves...but that leads us to politics.
Fly2HMO From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 56, posted (3 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 569 times:
Quoting johnkrist (Reply 54): These numbers can't be found anywhere else in the world, the Mexico ranks a good 2nd with 24% and UK 3rd with 22% which is far below US levels.
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 US generally use HFCS use normal sugar in Mexico. Reason being is that sugar cane production is a heavily subsidized by the government, and Mexico is one of the top sugar cane producers in the world (#6 currently).
So by that measure, I don't see how you can correlate HFCS production/consumption with obesity seeing how nations that don't consume or produce much HFCS have severe obesity problems as well. Mexico was number 1 for child obesity worldwide IIRC.
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 14050 posts, RR: 55 Reply 57, posted (3 months 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 539 times:
Quoting Fly2HMO (Reply 53): They both can (potentially) cause health problems if consumed in excess.
No no no no. Let me make this clear: they WILL cause health problems if consumed in excess.
Quoting johnkrist (Reply 54):
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 consumption is bigger than anywhere else in the world.
I think it's an odd case of coincidence. Look, obesity is a huge problem in just about every first-world country. The US just happens to be leading the world (as we do) in that problem. It's a huge problem (no pun intended) in the UK and in Australia, too. They're only slightly behind us.
As HFCS was being introduced, so was supersizing. The original 6oz bottles of soft drinks were introduced as dessert replacements. Plates back in the 1960's were smaller.
The problem is overconsumption of food in general in a setting of less exercise. In addition, there is a problem of overconsumption of concentrated sugars. Remember, digested sucrose turns into what is essentially HFCS, so there's no real reason why there should be a difference, and there's no strong evidence that there is.
johnkrist From Sweden, joined Jan 2005, 1282 posts, RR: 6 Reply 58, posted (3 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 513 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD SUPPORT
Quoting dl021 (Reply 55): kept more kids and adults stationary in their rooms in front of screens
The closest kids get to hide and seek today is a game of Counter Strike
Quoting dl021 (Reply 55): Europe is getting fatter too
Absolutely, 1 in 5 is not pretty either, and we have adjusted our sizes accordingly.
In Sweden it's 1 in 10 that is obese, but I bet the overweight percentage is about equal. Heck I'm no skinny person either
Quoting Fly2HMO (Reply 56): Mexico was number 1 for child obesity worldwide IIRC.
Yes, with the US at No 2 with 4% less obeseity among children
I wouldn't call 30% more obese persons than the runner up is slightly behind, and 200% more than Sweden.
10% more US citizens are obese compared to the UK. And let me tell you that UK food is jam packed with sugar and fat too
people in the UK also watch TV, play computer games like people in the US do, and eat just as much junk food. For me, it's easy to blame HCFS.
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 57): Remember, digested sucrose turns into what is essentially HFCS, so there's no real reason why there should be a difference, and there's no strong evidence that there is.
You forget one thing, energy is needed to break down sugar into sucrose and fructose. This step is bypassed with HCFS.
7D, 17-40 F4 L, 70-200 F2.8 L IS, EF 1.4x II, EF 2x III, Metz 58-AF1
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, 
From Switzerland, joined Jan 2005, 1711 posts, 
From France, joined Nov 2004, 2355 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
