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

If people want to eat HFCS that's their business, like smoking cigarettes, but when corporations actively try to obfuscate the truth of the dangers of it, it's bad.

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."

You have ten people going out to lunch. Lunch costs 5$. Occasionally someone forgets their wallet or is short, so the rest of the group pools their money, and picks up lunch for that person. So while everyone is out 60 cents extra, they can safely know that if they're short one day they'll get their lunch taken care of by the rest of the group.

I do not mean to insult in this - but your example is NOT an example of liberal government. It is an example of CONSERVATIVE NON-GOVERNMENT! You have mis-applied your example so completely as to completely render your entire point invalid, and have resulted in making yourself appear laughably ignorant.

When government is involved in the process of 'social justice' then it in NO WAY resembles your example. Here is what your example would look like when using government as a solution...

Ten people go out to lunch. Lunch costs $5. Everyone is signed up under the "Government Lunch" program, and is being taxed out of every paycheck to the tune of $2,500 every year ($1,825 for 365 days of government lunches, plus $675 in administration). ONE person in the group is at the poverty level, and so he gets his 'Government Lunch' at a reduced rate (he only pays maybe $1,200 a year out of his wages). A different guy earns over $200,000 a year, so his 'free lunch' program costs him $8,000 a year. Everyone else pays the regular $2,500. You can only get the 'free lunch' at specially selected government restaurants which serve government approved food (no trans fats, no booze, no HFCS) and each meal is dietically similar with a maximum of 650 calories and a proper balance of fruit, veggies, grains, and protien.

THAT is what your example should be like. In it, some people are paying as much as $21 dollars for a $5 lunch. Most people are paying over $6 for the free lunch. And one guy is paying $4.10 for his free lunch. Everyone is being forced to pay, whether they use the lunch or not, and piles of cash are going into a big government program which only ONE PERSON IN TEN even vaguely benefits from.

Your original example actually follows the CONSERVATIVE approach. No government program. Ten individuals. They decide among themselves who needs a hand, and the people voluntarily meet the need in a brief, efficient transaction in which the person either gets help, or pays everyone back at a later time.

Thank you for giving us such a fantastic example of the PROPER way to do charity. Voluntarily - with no government.

>> ^FlowersInHisHair:
High-fructose corn syrup and "real sugar" are metabolically identical. HFCS is not worse for you than sugar. It's just calories.
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4157


Doesn't matter if they're better or worse, HFCS tastes different.

I'm from Australia, and traveling to the US and having the coke over there... yup, it tastes different.

Not worse necessarily, but different.

>> ^FlowersInHisHair:
High-fructose corn syrup and "real sugar" are metabolically identical. HFCS is not worse for you than sugar. It's just calories.
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4157


maybe metabolically identical, but not moneyshotically identical.

High-fructose corn syrup and "real sugar" are metabolically identical. HFCS is not worse for you than sugar. It's just calories.
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4157

your statement is true....one needs to take into account the actual levels of mercury.

from the abstract: The samples were found to contain levels of mercury ranging from below a detection limit of 0.005 to 0.570 micrograms mercury per gram of high fructose corn syrup. Average daily consumption of high fructose corn syrup is about 50 grams per person in the United States. With respect to total mercury exposure, it may be necessary to account for this source of mercury in the diet of children and sensitive populations.

this was one of two studies done on the subject. While I know the 2nd study found mercury in more products that contain HFCS, I'm not sure at what levels.

Q

In reply to this comment by jwray:
>> ^qruel:
Since we are talking about Mercury... here's some interesting facts...
Gold mines are the nation's largest source of mercury pollution. Like all mining, separating and processing the gold creates tons of toxic metals, like lead and mercury. Nevada is home to eight of the nation's top 10 mercury polluters. Here is a list of the top 100 Some other sources: Coal Fired Power Plants, Cement Kilns, Incinerators, Chlor-alkali Production, Chemical Plants.

In 2005 the FDA did a study that showed mercury in many food products that contained High Fructose Corn Syrup (due to mercury in the caustic soda and hydrochloric acid used in the manufacture of HFCS), and the FDA did absolutely nothing about it.


Presence of "detectable" levels is meaningless unless you name a specific concentration. Nearly everything will randomly contain at least 1 part in 10^20 of whichever stable element you want, which could be measured with a sufficiently accurate mass spectrometer.

^jwray
your statement is true....one needs to take into account the actual levels of mercury.

from the abstract: The samples were found to contain levels of mercury ranging from below a detection limit of 0.005 to 0.570 micrograms mercury per gram of high fructose corn syrup. Average daily consumption of high fructose corn syrup is about 50 grams per person in the United States. With respect to total mercury exposure, it may be necessary to account for this source of mercury in the diet of children and sensitive populations.

this was one of two studies done on the subject. While I know the 2nd one found mercury in more products that contain HFCS, I'm not sure at what levels.

>> ^qruel:
Since we are talking about Mercury... here's some interesting facts...
Gold mines are the nation's largest source of mercury pollution. Like all mining, separating and processing the gold creates tons of toxic metals, like lead and mercury. Nevada is home to eight of the nation's top 10 mercury polluters. Here is a list of the top 100 Some other sources: Coal Fired Power Plants, Cement Kilns, Incinerators, Chlor-alkali Production, Chemical Plants.

In 2005 the FDA did a study that showed mercury in many food products that contained High Fructose Corn Syrup (due to mercury in the caustic soda and hydrochloric acid used in the manufacture of HFCS), and the FDA did absolutely nothing about it.


Presence of "detectable" levels is meaningless unless you name a specific concentration. Nearly everything will randomly contain at least 1 part in 10^20 of whichever stable element you want, which could be measured with a sufficiently accurate mass spectrometer.

Since we are talking about Mercury... here's some interesting facts...

Gold mines are the nation's largest source of mercury pollution. Like all mining, separating and processing the gold creates tons of toxic metals, like lead and mercury. Nevada is home to eight of the nation's top 10 mercury polluters. Here is a list of the top 100 Some other sources: Coal Fired Power Plants, Cement Kilns, Incinerators, Chlor-alkali Production, Chemical Plants.

In 2005 the FDA did a study that showed mercury in many food products that contained High Fructose Corn Syrup (due to mercury in the caustic soda and hydrochloric acid used in the manufacture of HFCS), and the FDA did absolutely nothing about it.