18 replies to this topic

[timmusi]

This site was advertised several times this morning on the kids channel's my kids were watching:

http://www.sweetsurp...squickfacts.php

I can't believe they push this bunk on kids. Our society is broke.

Thanks, Tim

[luv2increase]

two words:

Sadly Sickening

[Cyberbrain]

High Fructose Corn Syrup seems to be an ingredient only used in America. Rarely do I go to a supermarket in Germany or Greece and see it as an ingredient in juice or something.

[OneScrewLoose]

Can someone post the details of why HFCS is more harmful than other sweeteners? I've always heard that it is but never saw the specifics of why.

[s123]

Can someone post the details of why HFCS is more harmful than other sweeteners? I've always heard that it is but never saw the specifics of why.

Now suspicion is growing that not all sugars are created equal either. Overweight adults who consume large amounts of fructose have been found to experience alarming changes in body fat and insulin sensitivity that do not occur after eating glucose.

Source: http://www.newscient...y-epidemic.html

http://www.eurekaler...s-wof062508.php

http://www.medicalne...ticles/9120.php

This site was advertised several times this morning on the kids channel's my kids were watching:

http://www.sweetsurp...squickfacts.php

I can't believe they push this bunk on kids. Our society is broke.

Thanks, Tim

Here in Belgium there's an advertise on television that states that margarine is healthy. I'm so angry that I even thought to send an e-mail to the commission for ethics in advertising.

Edited by s123, 06 September 2008 - 05:15 PM.

[krillin]

Can someone post the details of why HFCS is more harmful than other sweeteners? I've always heard that it is but never saw the specifics of why.

It's not. Sucrose is equally bad, which isn't surprising because HFCS has almost the same composition. Glucose isn't a viable alternative because its sweetness is too low.

[cyborgdreamer]

Is the fructose you get from fruit any better? Or is there just less of it?

[s123]

Is the fructose you get from fruit any better? Or is there just less of it?

Fructose is fructose, it doesn't matter where it comes from.
But fruits have beside the bad fructose also many good nutrients in them.
Blueberries are often advised on imminst because they contain the least frucose compared to the amount of nutrients.

Edited by s123, 07 September 2008 - 12:38 AM.

[timmusi]

I happened to watch one of the commercials and they try to make you think that all the bad publicity is unfounded.
Then the tell you to go to their site and read the facts. Ya, the facts according to them. It was aimed at kids to sway them.
This is what sickens me the most. Totally irresponsible.

Thanks, Tim

[OneScrewLoose]

I don't see the big deal about HFCS, at least as far as people saying that it's so much worse than sucrose. It only contains a little more fructose than sucrose. None of those studies compared the two either.

[zoolander]

It would be worth while for everyone to do a little reading on how fructose is metabolised. The primary problem with fructose is how it increases de novo lipogeneis in the liver. This eventually results in increased fatty deposits in the liver, increased insulin resistance and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease.

On top of this the HFCS is a highly refined sugar with no nutritional value (apart from the empty calories). Foods with no nutritional value take up valuable space in our daily caloric intake that could be utilized by health promoting foods. What often occurs is that the nutrients missing from the empty calorie foods are gained from other foods which bumps up the total caloric intake.

So what we're talking about is a double whammy! 1) increased lipogenesis in the liver with increased insulin resistance and 2) increase food intake

which =



I really hope that the above picture shocks people. This is what we're all heading towards unless we change our ways. If you look like this or if you know people who do then use the above picture to drive you towards being a healthier person.

PS: I don't look anything like the above picture. I'm 36, 7% bodyfat, a fantastic 6 pack, glowing skin, and so on. Coincidentially, my diet contains almost zero fructose, minimal CHO, decent amounts of both MUFA and PUFA, high protein and various supplements. Everyone can reach this state. I consider myself to be what a normal 36 year old should be if they're smart about their health.

[zoolander]

I don't see the big deal about HFCS, at least as far as people saying that it's so much worse than sucrose. It only contains a little more fructose than sucrose. None of those studies compared the two either.

you really need to do a little more reading.

[zoolander]

I'm not sure if this has been said yet but HFCS is a hell of a lot cheaper than cane sugar. This is one of the reasons why the amount of HFCS has increased in the diet. The main reason fructose increased in the diet though is related to the release of the Surgeon general's Report in the mid 70's that promoted a diet high inCHO and low in fat. Fat was removed from a lot of products (99% fat free) which removed a lot of the taste so the fructose become the surrogate.

What a fucking mistake!!!!

[niner]

PS: I don't look anything like the above picture. I'm 36, 7% bodyfat, a fantastic 6 pack, glowing skin, and so on. Coincidentially, my diet contains almost zero fructose, minimal CHO, decent amounts of both MUFA and PUFA, high protein and various supplements.

Zoo, We knew that wasn't you! But seriously, I thought you'd have a hotter girlfriend.
I used to be opposed to HFCS, until I read this:

keeps ingredients evenly dispersed in condiments.

Oh! Ok. Bring it on!

[niner]

The Wikipedia article on HFCS is a pretty interesting read. A couple tidbits:

Thus, although they indicate that high fructose intake should be avoided, they don't necessarily indicate that HFCS is worse than sucrose intake, except insofar as HFCS contains 10% more fructose. Studies which have compared HFCS to sucrose (as opposed to pure fructose) find that they have essentially identical physiological effects. For instance, Melanson et al (2006), studied the effects of HFCS and sucrose sweetened drinks on blood glucose, insulin, leptin, and ghrelin levels. They found no significant differences in any of these parameters.[23]

Vernors was originally sweetened with stevia from 1866 to 1991 and had a "deliciously different" taste. When the FDA banned stevia in 1991, the company replaced stevia in their drinks with HFCS.

So the Vernors (a strong ginger ale) that I drank as a kid was sweetened with stevia! Wow, who knew? Not to get too OT, but why the hell did the FDA ban stevia? Would it be related to:

The preference for high-fructose corn syrup over cane sugar among the vast majority of American food and beverage manufacturers is largely due to U.S. import quotas and tariffs on sugar. These tariffs significantly increase the domestic U.S. price for sugar, forcing Americans to pay more than twice the world price for sugar, thus making high-fructose corn syrup an attractive substitute in U.S. markets. For instance, soft drink makers like Coca-Cola use sugar in other nations, but use high-fructose corn syrup in their U.S. products.

Large corporations, such as Archer Daniels Midland, lobby for the continuation of these subsidies.[16] Since local and federal laws often put a limit on how much money one particular lobbyist can contribute,[17] ADM's contributions are often given by numerous smaller entities under the authority of ADM. This is commonly called bundling political contributions.

The U.S. farm lobby/sugar industry is also suspected of having pushed the FDA to unjustifiably restrict the importation of stevia (a natural sugar substitute used in Japan and elsewhere for over 30 years) despite Joint Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations/World Health Organization Expert Committee supporting its safety.[18][19]

[RoadToAwe]

Can someone post the details of why HFCS is more harmful than other sweeteners? I've always heard that it is but never saw the specifics of why.

It's not. Sucrose is equally bad, which isn't surprising because HFCS has almost the same composition. Glucose isn't a viable alternative because its sweetness is too low.

It may not be as simple as that. Following is an extract from a Rutgers university study:


In the current study, Chi-Tang Ho and colleagues conducted chemical tests among 11 different carbonated soft drinks containing HFCS. They found 'astonishingly high' levels of reactive carbonyls in those beverages. These undesirable and highly-reactive compounds associated with "unbound" fructose and glucose molecules are believed to cause tissue damage, the researchers said. By contrast, reactive carbonyls are not present in table sugar, whose fructose and glucose components are "bound" and chemically stable, they noted.

[wiserd]

What about Inulin and fructooligosaccharides? I used to use yacon syrup and agave nectar which have some fructose and some FOS which are not directly digestable and have to be metabolized by gut bacteria. I figured this was better since it was still sweet but helped prevent an insulin spike. I've heard that some agave nectar is supposedly cut with HFCS. I prefer raw, since heat can break down the FOS to some degree. But is all this pointless?

Currently I use mostly xylitol.

[wiserd]

Please note: that's inulin. Not insulin.

[krillin]

Can someone post the details of why HFCS is more harmful than other sweeteners? I've always heard that it is but never saw the specifics of why.

It's not. Sucrose is equally bad, which isn't surprising because HFCS has almost the same composition. Glucose isn't a viable alternative because its sweetness is too low.

It may not be as simple as that. Following is an extract from a Rutgers university study:


In the current study, Chi-Tang Ho and colleagues conducted chemical tests among 11 different carbonated soft drinks containing HFCS. They found 'astonishingly high' levels of reactive carbonyls in those beverages. These undesirable and highly-reactive compounds associated with "unbound" fructose and glucose molecules are believed to cause tissue damage, the researchers said. By contrast, reactive carbonyls are not present in table sugar, whose fructose and glucose components are "bound" and chemically stable, they noted.

Did they do a fair test and use sucrose from a drink, or did they just buy a bag of sugar? Sucrose could be stabler, than monosaccharides but it's capable of glycation too.