OK. I actually did drink almost nothing but coke for >20 years, 1-2 cans per day and maybe no coffee, but a lot of milk, and nothing else. I stayed 375lbs the whole time, and I got diabetes. I also didn't develop heart problems or potassium deficiency, but I don't eat bananas.
Obviously everyone's experience will differ.
I drink no sodas, but these days I at least look for water that's made with no cane sugar, and almost anything is less acidic than coke, so I'm doing 'better', but still not good.

OK. I actually did drink almost nothing but coke for >20 years, 6-12 cans per day and maybe up to 2 cups of coffee with too much sugar, and nothing else. I stayed 165lbs the whole time, and I never got diabetes. I also didn't develop heart problems or potassium deficiency, but I do eat bananas.
Obviously everyone's experience will differ.
I still drink mostly sodas, but these days I at least look for soda that's made with real cane sugar, and almost anything is less acidic than coke, so I'm doing 'better', but still not good.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'soda, pop, cola' to 'soda, pop, cola, store, Glass bottle, Galcos, cane sugar, cucumber soda' - edited by notarobot

Made these last night-I call em:

Chewy Sugar Cookies (monster version)

2 3/4 cups flour (sifted with:)
1 tsp baking soda
1/2 tsp baking powder

I cup (2 sticks) salted, butter (softened)
1 1/2 cups whole cane sugar
1 egg
1tsp (or to taste) vanilla extract
3-6 tbsp buttermilk
some ground cinnamon, and some more sugar for later

sift dry ingredients into bowl
in a separate bowl, cream sugar, extract, egg, and a small glug of buttermilk until creamy
mix wet and dry ingredients and add just enough extra buttermilk to make the mix slightly sticky but not wet (or, the opposite of how you like your women)

NOW comes the monster part:

Add to dough, some pure grated coconut (unsweetened), dried cranberries, and fresh almonds that have been hit with the coffee grinder to chop and powder a bit)

Place the dough in the freezer while you preheat the oven to 375°F

on an un-greased cookie sheet, place small dollops of dough that has been rolled in some of the coconut/almond mix you set aside extra

on top of each dollop that you flatten slightly with a fork, brush-on some buttermilk on each dough-glob, then sprinkle with a sugar and a ground cinnamon mix

Bake for 8-10 minutes on second-to-top oven rack

Real panty-droppers these, bet ya can't eat just five

>> ^vaire2ube:

The "Your body can't tell the difference" ad for corn sugar reminds me of the "I'm not a witch" ad...
Why bother bringing it up if there is no merit, etc...
Plus its been proven HFCS "corn sugar" is bad for you, and is just used because its a cheap thickening agent which is why you find it in products that don't even need it.
It's about money over your health, but "your body can't tell the difference".

. .. "in high-fructose corn syrup, the fructose molecules in the sweetener are free and unbound, ready for absorption and utilization. In contrast, every fructose molecule in sucrose that comes from cane sugar or beet sugar is bound to a corresponding glucose molecule and must go through an extra metabolic step before it can be utilized."
Source: http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S26/91/22K07/"
A Princeton University research team has demonstrated that all sweeteners are not equal when it comes to weight gain: Rats with access to high-fructose corn syrup gained significantly more weight than those with access to table sugar, even when their overall caloric intake was the same.
In addition to causing significant weight gain in lab animals, long-term consumption of high-fructose corn syrup also led to abnormal increases in body fat, especially in the abdomen, and a rise in circulating blood fats called triglycerides. The researchers say the work sheds light on the factors contributing to obesity trends in the United States."

Go to http://www.cornsugar.com and let them know you dont believe their ad.

Sugar is BETTER for you than "Corn Sugar", and always in moderation.


There is not a scientific consensus about whether HFCS is worse than cane sugar. That Priceton paper is making big waves, but there are contrary viewpoints.

Reddit's AskScience forum had this discussion, which involves several relevant scientists:
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/djo8a/whats_the_deal_with_hfcs_vs_real_sugar/

nope, we didn't even think to look at diet drinks, but in regular US coca cola, pepsi and dr. pepper there's about 35mg (or micrograms, maybe. been a while and i don't keep soda in the house)... dr. pepper may be a little higher, i think grape soda was a little lower.

they don't list the values on the cans in the netherlands, i was just wondering if thats because they just dont have to or because they don't put sodium in their drinks. >> ^dag:

I thought that sodium was only high in diet soda.
BTW, cane sugar is also used in soft drinks here in Australia - mainly because we have lots of cane farmers and few corn farmers - so it's cheap. It would probably be cheaper in the US today if there weren't massive government subsidies to corn farmers.
>> ^peggedbea:
hey, this is something my dude and i were wondering about while we were in the netherlands last year...
in the US most sodas are made with hfcs, but in europe they mostly use real sugar... so we were reading all the soda cans there and none of them listed the sodium content but here they always list the sodium content and it's pretty well known that sodas are high in sodium...
so do they not put the sodium in sodas in europe? or do they just not have to list the sodium content on the nutrition labels?
does the sodium content have something to do with the hfcs content? or are they just adding it to our sodas over here to make us thirstier so we'll drink more soda?

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I thought that sodium was only high in diet soda.

BTW, cane sugar is also used in soft drinks here in Australia - mainly because we have lots of cane farmers and few corn farmers - so it's cheap. It would probably be cheaper in the US today if there weren't massive government subsidies to corn farmers.

>> ^peggedbea:

hey, this is something my dude and i were wondering about while we were in the netherlands last year...
in the US most sodas are made with hfcs, but in europe they mostly use real sugar... so we were reading all the soda cans there and none of them listed the sodium content but here they always list the sodium content and it's pretty well known that sodas are high in sodium...
so do they not put the sodium in sodas in europe? or do they just not have to list the sodium content on the nutrition labels?
does the sodium content have something to do with the hfcs content? or are they just adding it to our sodas over here to make us thirstier so we'll drink more soda?

The "Your body can't tell the difference" ad for corn sugar reminds me of the "I'm not a witch" ad...

Why bother bringing it up if there is no merit, etc...

Plus its been proven HFCS "corn sugar" is bad for you, and is just used because its a cheap thickening agent which is why you find it in products that don't even need it.

It's about money over your health, but "your body can't tell the difference".


. .. "in high-fructose corn syrup, the fructose molecules in the sweetener are free and unbound, ready for absorption and utilization. In contrast, every fructose molecule in sucrose that comes from cane sugar or beet sugar is bound to a corresponding glucose molecule and must go through an extra metabolic step before it can be utilized."

Source: http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S26/91/22K07/"

A Princeton University research team has demonstrated that all sweeteners are not equal when it comes to weight gain: Rats with access to high-fructose corn syrup gained significantly more weight than those with access to table sugar, even when their overall caloric intake was the same.

In addition to causing significant weight gain in lab animals, long-term consumption of high-fructose corn syrup also led to abnormal increases in body fat, especially in the abdomen, and a rise in circulating blood fats called triglycerides. The researchers say the work sheds light on the factors contributing to obesity trends in the United States."



Go to http://www.cornsugar.com and let them know you dont believe their ad.


Sugar is BETTER for you than "Corn Sugar", and always in moderation.

Up till a few years ago, it was here too. Beet sugar in Manitoba and Cane sugar in BC, from what I recall. I miss it. This corn based sweetener is so gross to me.

In reply to this comment by calvados:
I want to try Coke made with sugar. They still make it that way in Mexico, I hear.

>> ^jwray:
The difference between a coke with sugar and a coke with HFCS is like the difference between a double quarter pounder with cheese and a double quarter pounder with cheese and a few bacon bits sprinkled on top.
The difference is the Coke has HFCS in it because the government has artificially made HFCS cheaper with our tax dollars and at the same time made cane sugar artificially more expensive through tariffs. This directly benefits corporations...it can be argued that it does or does not benefit the people indirectly but the fact remains that it's being done regardless of how it effects the people because thats what big money wants.

jwray, don't miss the forest for the trees. His main problem with HFCS is that its the product of government subsidies for special interests that, along with tariffs protecting the cane sugar industry, resulting ultimately in a higher effective cost for Americans. Additionally, another problem with the subsidies is that it pays for farmers to produce corn, and with such a surplus of corn, the industry pushes its supply of corn into whatever supply chain it can....including things such as HFCS, corn ethanol, corn-fed beef, all of which have deleterious effects on the health of our society and economy.

He believes that the biggest impact of corn subsidies on our public health result from using antibiotics that should be judiciously restricted for human health is indiscriminately given to keep corn-fed cattle alive while fattening to slaughter, which simultaneously selects for bacteria that are resistant to said antibiotics.

>> ^direpickle:

>> ^teebeenz:
"For people who are worried about their health or their children’s health — and who isn’t, these days — the data suggest that the best choice is to reduce intake of all sweeteners containing fructose. That includes not only the evil HFCS, but also natural cane sugar, molasses (which is just impure cane sugar), brown sugar (ditto) and honey. Even “unsweetened” (no added sugar) fruit juices need to be considered when limiting your family’s fructose intake."
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=6501

But is that true?


As they said, based on current data... yes.

>> ^teebeenz:

"For people who are worried about their health or their children’s health — and who isn’t, these days — the data suggest that the best choice is to reduce intake of all sweeteners containing fructose. That includes not only the evil HFCS, but also natural cane sugar, molasses (which is just impure cane sugar), brown sugar (ditto) and honey. Even “unsweetened” (no added sugar) fruit juices need to be considered when limiting your family’s fructose intake."
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=6501


But is that true? Sucrose is 50% fructose and 50% glucose when broken down, but is sucrose actually processed in that order: split the disaccharide and then digest individual sugars? (Your link says that this is the case. And it says unsplit disaccharides stay in the gut. What percentage does this happen to?) Is there proof that fructose alone is bad and that it's not the imbalance of excess fructose vs. sucrose that's bad, like omega-6 vs. omega-3 fatty acids? Is fructose from Coke, mixed with carbonic acid, processed the same way, at the same speed, as fructose from apple juice?

"For people who are worried about their health or their children’s health — and who isn’t, these days — the data suggest that the best choice is to reduce intake of all sweeteners containing fructose. That includes not only the evil HFCS, but also natural cane sugar, molasses (which is just impure cane sugar), brown sugar (ditto) and honey. Even “unsweetened” (no added sugar) fruit juices need to be considered when limiting your family’s fructose intake."

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=6501

I just have to respond, since until recently I was a Starbucks barista (OK, so it got really stressful, and my boss left, and I just wasn't going to stay after that...)

But if you like hot chocolate, and have a sweet tooth, please try SB's signature hot chocolate, especially the one formerly known and 'salted caramel signature hot chocolate'. I don't really like their regular HC. It is too chocolaty and not sweet enough for me. The signature hot chocolate is 'European style' - which I don't get, but oh well.. It is a lot sweeter and creamier (a base that is made every day).

ANYWAY, what used to be the 'salted caramel signature hot chocolate' - which I am now calling SCHC has the signature hot chocolate PLUS toffee nut syrup (which I LOVE! So good on top of vanilla ice cream) and thry put caramel drizzle on top of the whipped cream. It used to have a sea salt topping but not any more. Sea salt topping sounds disgusting (maybe), but it was a mixture of hawaian smoked sea salt and cane sugar (or something like that) and it brought out the sweetness of the caramel. It was like having 'caramel pretzel Crunch' from Sheridan's Frozen Custard! (The only Sheridan's here closed But it was a micture of vanilla custard, which is super soft ice cream, pretzels and caramel, all mixed together.

Okies.. Just wanted to mention the caramel signature hot chocolate.. It costs a bit more than a regular hot chocolate, but it is soooo much better. You can also have that with espresso.. Ask for espresso truffle, and say you want the caramel version.. make sure they put Toffee nut syrup in it!