>> ^LarsaruS:

>> ^jwray:
I like the majority of his speech, but he's buying into the whole "HFCS is significantly worse than sugar" myth. The research doesn't support that. HFCS-55 is only about 10% worse than sugar because it contains 10% more fructose per calorie. Replacing HFCS with sugar in the modern diet would have a tiny benefit compared to just getting rid of sweeteners. If you absolutely positively have to use a sweetener, straight up glucose (aka dextrose) in a low % solution is fine.
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.

Here you go:
http://videosift.com/video/Sugar-The-Bitter-Truth
A 1.5h long exposé on the danger of HFCS.
edit because embed script failed...


Trying to support your position by linking a source that actually refutes your position is epic fail. The presenter in that video says sugar is the same as HFCS for all intents and purposes. He says the problem is fructose itself, which is present in both sugar and HFCS in nearly the same proportion (sugar is 50% fructose and HFCS is typically 55% fructose).

>> ^jwray:

I like the majority of his speech, but he's buying into the whole "HFCS is significantly worse than sugar" myth. The research doesn't support that. HFCS-55 is only about 10% worse than sugar because it contains 10% more fructose per calorie. Replacing HFCS with sugar in the modern diet would have a tiny benefit compared to just getting rid of sweeteners. If you absolutely positively have to use a sweetener, straight up glucose (aka dextrose) in a low % solution is fine.
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.


Here you go:
http://videosift.com/video/Sugar-The-Bitter-Truth
A 1.5h long exposé on the danger of HFCS.

* edit because embed script failed...

I like the majority of his speech, but he's buying into the whole "HFCS is significantly worse than sugar" myth. The research doesn't support that. HFCS-55 is only about 10% worse than sugar because it contains 10% more fructose per calorie. Replacing HFCS with sugar in the modern diet would have a tiny benefit compared to just getting rid of sweeteners. If you absolutely positively have to use a sweetener, straight up glucose (aka dextrose) in a low % solution is fine.

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.

>> ^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 see that they are trying to get the name changed from "High Fructose Corn Syrup" to "Corn Sugar" too. And have ads on TV stating this crap is no worse for you than real sugar.

>> ^Simple_Man:

I can't say for certain, but I'm think this video will change my life. I've been trying to lose weight for ages, not drinking any coke, doing exercise etc., but I've never realized the prevalence of high fructose corn syrup in all foods. I wrote down those 4 tips that he suggested to losing weight, and I'll repeat them here for those who missed it. I'll certainly stick to it and see if it works.
1. Get rid of all sugared liquids: only water and milk. Fruits are fine, because it contains all the fibers.
2. Eat carbs with fiber, because fibers are awesome. Fibers: Lowers total and LDL cholesterol, reduces risk of heart disease
regulates blood sugar, and speeds the passage of foods through the digestive system
3. Wait 20 mins for second portions, so your satiety response can kick in.
4. Buy your screen time minute-for-minute with physical activity.
Some other points:
-a calorie is not a calorie: you don't do exercise to burn calories, but to increase metabolism
-fructose IS NOT glucose. A large amount of glucose is used by the rest of the body, meaning it burns much quicker. Fructose can only be metabolized in the liver, and it's a volume issue. It means a lot gets turned into fat, and in that process, blocks receptors to generate certain chemicals which tell your body to stop eating, causing a vicious cycle.
-be a fattie or fart a lot (from the fiber). Make your choice.


So, it's been a couple of months. I'm wondering how the changes went?

Simple carbs are bad for you. Everyone knows this? None of the "omg carbs KILL BABIES" people or studies seem to contrast simple carbs vs. complex carbs. Are they stuffing them full of white bread? White rice? There was a study recently that showed just having *some* brown rice with your white rice measurably reduced the risk of diabetes, but I didn't see any of the He-Man Caveman Diet people mention that.

Some studies (though not all, admittedly--there are conflicting reports) indicate that sugars that are unbalanced in favor of more fructose (HFCS) cause problems that eating table sugar doesn't.

For the fatty meats, you also have to be careful about what exactly they're eating. Hamburger is the refined flour of the red meat world and steak is the 100% whole wheat bread. There's a difference in how they're digested, and there's a difference on their effects on the body. I'm too lazy to go find the reference, but there was a study comparing eating small amounts of hamburger vs. steak every day for some period of time, and the hamburger group had higher cholesterol and blood pressure and whatnot (could be misremembering the exact problems).

And for this study, the only thing that's moderately surprising is that the heavy drinkers are healthier than the non-drinkers. But it it utterly unsurprising that the moderate drinkers are healthier than both; this has been common knowledge for a while. Well, I am kinda surprised that 3 drinks a day is moderate drinking. That's a lot more than I drink. I wonder how the data would skew if they broke it down to 1 every few days, 1 every day, 2 every day, 3 every day, etc.

I'd put $5 on the some-complex-carb--eating, some-steak-eating, vegetable-eating, sugar/simple-carb--reducing, HFCS-avoiding, moderately-drinking person being healthier than any of the other permutations. Moderation isn't as sexy as being able to get all religious about being anti/pro-meat or anti/pro-carb or anti/pro-booze, though, I suppose!

>> ^blankfist:

And lastly, many items corn-based are not soda products. It is a food that goes into many products---including the making of corn on the cob.

"I think where the danger comes in with corn is that much of the corn grown now in North America is going into making high fructose corn syrup," Dawson says. "So it's not that corn per se is bad, but it's the sweetener made from corn that gets into many of the foods that Americans are probably consuming too much of, and we now see that showing up as obesity and heart disease and potential for type 2 diabetes."

I can't say for certain, but I'm think this video will change my life. I've been trying to lose weight for ages, not drinking any coke, doing exercise etc., but I've never realized the prevalence of high fructose corn syrup in all foods. I wrote down those 4 tips that he suggested to losing weight, and I'll repeat them here for those who missed it. I'll certainly stick to it and see if it works.

1. Get rid of all sugared liquids: only water and milk. Fruits are fine, because it contains all the fibers.

2. Eat carbs with fiber, because fibers are awesome. Fibers: Lowers total and LDL cholesterol, reduces risk of heart disease
regulates blood sugar, and speeds the passage of foods through the digestive system

3. Wait 20 mins for second portions, so your satiety response can kick in.

4. Buy your screen time minute-for-minute with physical activity.

Some other points:

-a calorie is not a calorie: you don't do exercise to burn calories, but to increase metabolism

-fructose IS NOT glucose. A large amount of glucose is used by the rest of the body, meaning it burns much quicker. Fructose can only be metabolized in the liver, and it's a volume issue. It means a lot gets turned into fat, and in that process, blocks receptors to generate certain chemicals which tell your body to stop eating, causing a vicious cycle.

-be a fattie or fart a lot (from the fiber). Make your choice.

Yeah, you could call Obama a corporatist and I'm sure the republicans would love that. Though, Republicans are mainly the ones who have created this shit monster we have here. They were the OG corporatists - corrupting everything including your grandma's potato salad. I'm sure they love hearing this new vocab word "corporatist" as another word to toss at the "opposing side" and get all high and mighty about Jesus Christ, protesting scientific FACTS, humanist goals, healthcare and letting the top 1% take everything from their pea brained families and everyone elses.

But, one cannot proclaim anyone else is a corporatist unless that person tossing around the term acknowledges that this is NOT a democracy that we live in. It's completely misleading to toss around new "gotcha moments" and not put that out into the open. So, since this is NOT a democracy what difference does it make? If Obama is a corporatist what does that make the Republican party? Megalithic Elephant Testicle Sack Corporate Dingbats & complacent globalist murderers? Seriously, don't even listen to Ron Paul he is a Pro-life, Christian nutcase...

and I cannot even stop with that thought, here is the rest of my rant: everyone in that party needs to shut their huge gaping lie spreading mouths and open up their assholes to receive their nightly $10000000 fistful of cash up into there from good ol' Captain America (Enron, Bechtel, Lockheed, industry lobbyists, the couple of corporate media conglomerates showering the country with bullshit ideas, the insurance companies, big oil, etc etc etc) Open up, piggies! Eat your shit inorganic food, here's some shitty tuna and some shitty fries don't forget to chug it down with some high fructose corn syrup so you can get diabetes, let's watch your brains decay but only after you hand over your wallet to the top 1% who already own everything.

Okay..since my sarcasm didn't quite drive the point home, I'll explain why this is a misguided idea:

Tanning Salons
-Vitamin D is synthesized in the body after exposure to sunlight. Anyone living far enough from the equator is bound to be deficient in Vitamin D. In fact, go ahead and plot cancer incidence by latitude and you'll see what I mean. Vitamin D prevents cancer and heart disease.

Beef
- Read about Vilhjalmur_Stefansson. In the early 1900s he underwent a scientific study where he ate nothing but meat for a year...and came out healthier than when he went in. Also read about all-meat diets and ketosis. Prolonged ketosis is a cure for diabetes, heart disease and cancer - not to mention periodontal disease. In scientific studies, terminally ill patients who were so far gone they were beyond "medical science" had their tumors go into remission and even clear up completely on a ketosis diet. Cancer cells have a lot of insulin receptors - they respond to glucose, take away the glucose and the cancer starves. Read about it.

Pork
- Same as beef.

Alcohol
- In many countries, 1 in 3 people have some form of mental illness sometime in their lives. Alcohol helps a lot of people cope with society. How the hell do you think I cope with all the (50% of the population) sub-100 IQ zombies walking around?

Oil used for deep-frying
- Fat is not unhealthy. Cholesterol does not cause heart disease, nor is it a good predictor of those who will get heart disease. Only ~3% of arterial plague is cholesterol by composition - the vast majority is calcium. Vitamin D helps regulate calcium...this goes back to the tanning salons.

Gasoline -- especially because it gives people an incentive to WALK when they're going less than 2 miles to a store, instead of driving.
- I don't think the cost of gasoline has ever factored into a lazy persons decision of whether to walk. The burning of fossil fuels and the creation of air pollution is a national health hazard (akin to me walking up and dumping toxic waste on you) and so YES this should be taxed because pollution is a hidden cost of industry; but the funds shouldn't go to Medicare they should go to giant air-scrubbers which help de-pollute the air.

Coal
- Same as gas

Natural Gas
- Same as coal.

Sugar and High Fructose Corn Syrup, Junk Food in general, & Cigarettes
- Okay, maybe you have some kind of argument here because these are legitimately detrimental to your health, but only used in excess. So unless you find a way to tax "excess" or define "excess" I can't see an argument for taxing the stray cigarette or potatoe chip.

Here is another link to a study on High Fructose Corn Syrup:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100322121115.htm

That stuff is deadly...

I knew I should have put a disclaimer on my comment saying "That said, I do support legalization of marijuana."

My real point is this: making a behavior illegal reduces the incidence of it. If it didn't, we wouldn't bother having law enforcement at all.

@LordOderus, I was taught the same thing about prohibition. I never really questioned it because I definitely think prohibition was stupid, but honestly just flipping through the evidence in the link you provided, all they really showed is that criminally-supplied alcohol was more likely to get you hospitalized and/or arrested. I dunno if that was just because people were cutting corners to make as much as they can and producing unsafe liquor, or if it was because people tended to binge drink when they did get access to alcohol, or both, but I don't think that means the overall consumption of alcohol actually went up. It just showed that the negative effects that derive from people drinking alcohol got more acute (which is perfectly good grounds for repealing prohibition, IMO).

It also shows how hard it is to ban something that's essentially universally considered socially acceptable.

@dannym3141, I agree with you. Those are the reasons why I favor legalization of marijuana. I still say banning it reduces usage, I just don't think we should care about reducing marijuana usage.

@gwiz665, funny you should bring up banning high fructose corn syrup, fat and sugar. I'm strongly in favor of taxing those things, and using the proceeds to partially fund a national health care system, but I'd obviously oppose banning them. Granted, we could probably entirely eliminate the use of high fructose corn syrup in food by reforming our farm subsidies (preferrably by mostly eliminating them), something I'd also like to see happen.

Now, I'm gonna play devil's advocate.

I'm totally for controlling (i.e. make them by prescription only) drugs which are highly physically addictive, and drugs that can be immediately life-threatening.

For example, I don't think I'd ever support legalizing heroin or crack.

I might be amenable to banning cigarettes too, though I think the way it's being squeezed in the US is probably the only way to really cut down on smoking -- keep jacking up the tax on it, and essentially ban smoking in all public areas that aren't bars, and run media campaigns to try to stigmatize smoking.