>> ^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/

>> ^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?


I'm doing a report on salt right now (seriously) and I think we can be pretty sure that an overabundance of sodium in your diet is a bad thing. But don't forget that sodium chloride is what makes shit taste good. Sweet things are always better with a little bit of salt to set them off. I'm pretty sure that sodium is added to pretty much any soda you can buy, including the ones in Europe. The content is higher in diet soda but it's there in regular soda as well. One thing you can be sure of: an excess of sugar in any form is WAY worse for you than an excess of sodium.

>> ^peggedbea:
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.

Maybe the Dutch just figured out sugar-inundated drinks are bad for you, all by themselves, without their government's intervention.

Your video, High Fructose Corn Syrup is perfectly healthy, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

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?

Fixed. Thanks.

In reply to this comment by notarobot:
Fructose can lead to hear disease, which can make you get a bad caee of *dead. If you want to know why, check out http://videosift.com/video/Sugar-The-Bitter-Truth

Fructose is linked to heart disease, glucose is not.

This is due to the two different types of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) formed in the blood as the body metabolizes sugars. LDL formed by metabolizing glucose is large and buoyant, thus floating harmlessly through the blood. LDL formed by metabolizing fructose is smaller and denser, and more likely to get caught in the walls of the arteries, causing plaque buildup and leads to heart disease.

The only proper treatment for fructose intake is oddly the one thing abundant in all natural sources of the toxin: fibre.

http://videosift.com/video/Sugar-The-Bitter-Truth

Fructose can lead to heart disease, which can make you get a bad caee of *dead. If you want to know why, check out http://videosift.com/video/Sugar-The-Bitter-Truth

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.

The only thing that's wrong, but right in "more healthy" aspect is the Pepsi (unless that's the ONLY way you get your mass water). The "eight/six/whatever glasses of water" a day is bunk science. Water is in almost everything you could eat or drink. Otherwise a microwave would be useless. Pepsi is mostly water, but the high-fructose corn syrup is the horrific part and the sodium to a lesser extent.

I'd much rather buy Kool-Aid or Tang as it's easier for the body to digest and you can decide the concentration level.

The one thing I hate about soft-drinks is that I like to have more water and less syrup--it becomes sickening at normal levels. Which is why I think 7-11, Maverick, Holiday, or wherever else you go tastes better from the fountain as it's usually toned down syrup wise.)

Everything else he brings up is dead on. Anyway, back too teh funny!

you obviously live in canada or somewhere else where public school teaches kids science, math, sex ed and healthy lifestyle choices.. instead of simply the skills they need to work in retail or join the military.

also, humanity as whole doesn't really understand nutrition. there are plenty of decent, resonable parents who don't have a clue what a balanced diet actually looks like and actually try to raise their kids to have good habits.

also, i don't think taking away a 5 cent toy is going to do anything about the people who eat fast food often enough for it to be a major problem. it has already become a habit .. my son probably wouldnt care about going to mcdonalds ever again if he wasnt going to get a toy, but we also eat mostly plants at home and grab fast food less than once a month on average.

banning high fructose corn syrup would do more to curb obesity. this is epicly stupid. like throwing a bigger warning label on a carton of cigarettes and felating yourself for combating lung cancer.
In reply to this comment by Sagemind:
"So basically everyone should be responsible for raising the kids...except their parents? Who's driving the kids to McD? Who's paying for the food? Who ultimately decides to celebrate a kid's birthday at McD? And who fails to provide a healthy diet at home that would lessen the negative impact of an occasional McD meal?" - campionidelmondo



You also have to realize that Education is education. That's what school is there for. I don't teach my kids everything they need to know, some things they learn in school or on their own. Like mine, most kids are smart. Mine will call me on something I get wrong. They do have differing opinions that I don't always share.

As an adult, If I like McDs (though I don't), and I go there all the time. My kids should have that opportunity to learn facts contrary to my habits and be able to call me on it.

The school system is there to help guide our kids in their education in the areas the parents fall short. This is true for science, math and even shop class. If I hate sports, should my kids not be allowed to take Phys Ed? They already have health and nutrition in school (part of science class I believe) why not show them the film and make it part of the curriculum.

We already do it with "Family life" class (or what ever your town calls it) - kids learn all about sex, STDs, personal health and hygiene and are better off for it.
Why should Nutrition be different?

What a terrible strategy to combat childhood obesity. Banning the 5 cent plastic toy that kids throw away the next day isn't going to do anything, it's just going to save fast food joints 5 cents, which will be added to the advertising budget, which will entice more younglings to pad their little bellies with fat and clog their tiny little ateries with toxic sludge.

Banning high fructose corn syrup would be much more effective. Limiting advertising that targets children would be much more effective. A junk food tax would be much more effective. Enforcing stricter nutritional standards at public schools would be more effective.

At the Federal level, stopping the subsidies of HFCS would be much more effective. Not appointing members of Monsanto to the FDA would be much more effective.


Also, that is one disturbing screen shot. Thanks for the nausea, vaporlock.

>> ^jwray:

Whether you feed lab rats a lot of sugar or feed them a lot of HFCS, they both get fat. It's almost the same effect.


It also comes with the added bonus of -15 ability points to cancer resistance. (I kid, I really have no idea if high dosages of HFCS increase susceptibility to cancer in humans but it does in rats, apparently cancer cells love to nom on fructose/glucose)

Sugar is still much more expensive than high fructose corn syrup, and that nasty, hard to digest crap came into being about the same time obesity started trending upwards. Coincidence?