>> ^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
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-fructose_corn_syrup
"In the U.S., HFCS is among the sweeteners that have primarily replaced sucrose (table sugar) in the food industry. Factors for this include governmental production quotas of domestic sugar, subsidies of U.S. corn, and an import tariff on foreign sugar; all of which combine to raise the price of sucrose to levels above those of the rest of the world, making HFCS less costly for many sweetener applications."
So there are politico-economical reasons sodas in Europe contain beet 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.

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?

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.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by shuac.

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)

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.

>> ^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...

>> ^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.