Sugar is a term for a class of edible crystalline carbohydrates, mainly sucrose, lactose, and fructose.
These are not the same.
Yeah, but they're correct that HFCS has essentially the same dietary effects as cane sugar (sucrose).
HFCS isn't very high in fructose compared to sucrose anyway; if I remember correctly it's something like 55%/45% fructose/glucose in HFCS as used in most products compared to 50%/50% for sucrose.
[Edit: Wait, I'll quote Wikipedia:
"The most widely used varieties of high-fructose corn syrup are: HFCS 55 (mostly used in soft drinks), approximately 55% fructose and 42% glucose; and HFCS 42 (used in many foods and baked goods), approximately 42% fructose and 53% glucose.[5] HFCS-90, approximately 90% fructose and 10% glucose, is used in small quantities for specialty applications, but primarily is used to blend with HFCS 42 to make HFCS 55.[6]"]
Sugar is a term for a class of edible crystalline carbohydrates, mainly sucrose, lactose, and fructose.
These are not the same.
Yeah, but they're correct that HFCS has essentially the same dietary effects as cane sugar (sucrose).
HFCS isn't very high in fructose compared to sucrose anyway; if I remember correctly it's something like 55%/45% fructose/glucose in HFCS as used in most products compared to 50%/50% for sucrose.
[Edit: Wait, I'll quote Wikipedia:
"The most widely used varieties of high-fructose corn syrup are: HFCS 55 (mostly used in soft drinks), approximately 55% fructose and 42% glucose; and HFCS 42 (used in many foods and baked goods), approximately 42% fructose and 53% glucose.[5] HFCS-90, approximately 90% fructose and 10% glucose, is used in small quantities for specialty applications, but primarily is used to blend with HFCS 42 to make HFCS 55.[6]"]
"Sugar is sugar" is not the problem; it's just ignorant. It's in everything, is the problem. Everything that fructose has no right to be in. Combined with the effect of large amounts of fructose on the human body, and you get epidemic-like problems.
I live in the south so it's more like "would you like your sugar to be slightly wet on top"
Ew.
That used to sound appealing, but now it's just...
Ew.
Although it does take a while to adapt your taste to less sugar. Now it's like one cane-sugar soda every other week is a treat of sweet madness that is almost too much to handle. I don't know if that's a good thing or a bad thing.
Sandwich shop "drink/chips combo" deals are basically expensive chips because the my drink is always water which is free.
This right here is the key to it. Once you stop drinking poisonously sweet stuff for a little while, it's easy to remain eating moderate amounts of sugar than not. I don't even like most non-diet soda anymore. Ditto for, say, cake frosting.
I live in the south so it's more like "would you like your sugar to be slightly wet on top"
Ew.
That used to sound appealing, but now it's just...
Ew.
Although it does take a while to adapt your taste to less sugar. Now it's like one cane-sugar soda every other week is a treat of sweet madness that is almost too much to handle. I don't know if that's a good thing or a bad thing.
Sandwich shop "drink/chips combo" deals are basically expensive chips because the my drink is always water which is free.
This right here is the key to it. Once you stop drinking poisonously sweet stuff for a little while, it's easy to remain eating moderate amounts of sugar than not. I don't even like most non-diet soda anymore. Ditto for, say, cake frosting.
I'm still a sucker for chocolate though.
Not anything Hershey's though. I lived 30 minutes from there and learned to hate the stuff. Fucking going to the amusement park every goddamn summer. I HATE THEIR RIDES. Why won't you listen to me!?
Stoping soda and going for water can make you feel better on the same day, why aren't there "got milk?" ads for water?
"Got Milk" ads are paid for by people selling milk. Who would pay to advertise water? Utility companies make nothing off of the water you drink (it's an infinitesimal quantity compared to what you water your lawn with, shower with, or even wash with). Water filters and bottled waters are marketed pretty aggressively.
Stoping soda and going for water can make you feel better on the same day, why aren't there "got milk?" ads for water?
Because the only water that gets marketed is bottled water, which is a bane on the environment and generally comes from municipal tap water or - at best - a natural spring that provides minimal nutritional differences (although flavor varies by locale due to minor impurities).
That video also says that there's essentially no difference between HFCS and sugar, except that HFCS is cheaper so they put a lot of it in everything and get people hooked on unrealistic sweetness. The problem is eating too many sweet things: HFCS is only an indirect cause of that.
The problem is that, like many other social problems, you have to get people to stop wanting sweetness. How do you do that? I have no idea.
That video also says that there's essentially no difference between HFCS and sugar, except that HFCS is cheaper so they put a lot of it in everything and get people hooked on unrealistic sweetness. The problem is eating too many sweet things: HFCS is only an indirect cause of that.
The problem is that, like many other social problems, you have to get people to stop wanting sweetness. How do you do that? I have no idea.
Well shock collars, or a multi-generational educational campaign.
The shock collars would probably be more fun though.
Void Slayer on
He's a shy overambitious dog-catcher on the wrong side of the law. She's an orphaned psychic mercenary with the power to bend men's minds. They fight crime!
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
edited December 2010
The Corn Lobby has basically staked their future on the argument that "hey, it's no worse than other sugars!" Which, at least according to some studies, is false. But they use very tricky syntactical arguments that fool people into thinking they're being told something they're not actually being told.
"It's no worse than other sugars!"
"Okay, but which sugars? There are many different kinds."
"Well, um, it's better than some forms of--"
"And what do you mean by better?"
"Uh, it, um, has the same calorie density of some sugars . . . "
"Is it metabolized the same way as those sugars?"
"Uh . . . . "
"Does it have the same insulin threshold as those sugars?"
fructose isn't the problem, but rather the combination used in HFCS. fructose in fruit has no effect because fruit has fiber in it(which americans eat very little of), while soda has none. I also remember being linked something about how the exact combination imbalance in HFCS also had an effect on the dietary problems from them.
That video also says that there's essentially no difference between HFCS and sugar, except that HFCS is cheaper so they put a lot of it in everything and get people hooked on unrealistic sweetness. The problem is eating too many sweet things: HFCS is only an indirect cause of that.
The problem is that, like many other social problems, you have to get people to stop wanting sweetness. How do you do that? I have no idea.
Well shock collars, or a multi-generational educational campaign.
The shock collars would probably be more fun though.
Sweeteners rather than sugar would probably work, although be far less fun.
fructose isn't the problem, but rather the combination used in HFCS. fructose in fruit has no effect because fruit has fiber in it(which americans eat very little of), while soda has none. I also remember being linked something about how the exact combination imbalance in HFCS also had an effect on the dietary problems from them.
HFCS is 55/45 fructose/glucose. Sucrose (cane sugar) is 50/50.
HFCS is a little worse. Mostly though because it's so cheap. But the problem is sugar in general, regardless of it specific form. I see a lot of corn bashing in this thread but not a whole hell of a lot else - you want people to stop eating diabetes? Then they first need to stop eating/drinking sugary foods on a daily basis. Don't go pretending the problem would go away if you replaced HFCS with sucrose.
Sweeteners rather than sugar would probably work, although be far less fun.
The species Stevia rebaudiana, commonly known as sweetleaf, sweet leaf, sugarleaf, or simply stevia, is widely grown for its sweet leaves. As a sweetener and sugar substitute, stevia's taste has a slower onset and longer duration than that of sugar.
With its extracts having up to 300 times the sweetness of sugar, stevia has garnered attention with the rise in demand for low-carbohydrate, low-sugar food alternatives. Medical research has also shown possible benefits of stevia in treating obesity and high blood pressure. Because stevia has a negligible effect on blood glucose, it is attractive as a natural sweetener to people on carbohydrate-controlled diets.
Hexmage-PA on
0
Options
Casually HardcoreOnce an Asshole. Trying to be better.Registered Userregular
edited December 2010
I use stevia to sweeten my coffee and that shit is some good stuff.
I'm with Geckahn. The problem is "too much sugar" (sugar in the culinary sense of fructose/glucose, often together as sucrose, not the chemical sense) rather than "too much HFCS". The only way in which HFCS is noticeably worse for you diet-wise is that it's more abundant due to economic factors.
I find the easiest solution is not to buy sugary stuff. Changing your behavior at the point of purchase rather than the point of consumption is far, far easier, since you (presumably) buy groceries far less often than you eat.
I mean if I'm going to ingest sugar I'd like it to not taste like unwiped ass
Can you tell the difference between Pepsi and Pepsi Throwback?
emnmnme on
0
Options
Casually HardcoreOnce an Asshole. Trying to be better.Registered Userregular
edited December 2010
I wouldn't say that HFCS tastes like asswipe, cause honestly it taste sweet. Unless you're licking honey off of the ass of prostitutes, I don't see where you're getting that.
The problem I have with HFCS is that it's so damn sweet. A tablespoon of pure HFCS is gagging sweet.
Well we're arguing from opinions here so yeah, I personally don't like the taste of HFCS even though it's sweet. I'd much rather have plain sugar.
Yes, I can tell the difference between sodas that use cane sugar and HFCS. We have a Dr. Pepper factory here that makes cane sugar Dr. Pepper year round and man it tastes so much better.
joshofalltrades on
0
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
Well we're arguing from opinions here so yeah, I personally don't like the taste of HFCS even though it's sweet. I'd much rather have plain sugar.
Yes, I can tell the difference between sodas that use cane sugar and HFCS. We have a Dr. Pepper factory here that makes cane sugar Dr. Pepper year round and man it tastes so much better.
It's unquestionably lighter tasting.
HFCS sodas taste heavier and more syrupy, like it sticks to your mouth more or something.
The mouthfeel is way off.
syndalis on
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
The Corn Lobby has basically staked their future on the argument that "hey, it's no worse than other sugars!" Which, at least according to some studies, is false. But they use very tricky syntactical arguments that fool people into thinking they're being told something they're not actually being told.
"It's no worse than other sugars!"
"Okay, but which sugars? There are many different kinds."
"Well, um, it's better than some forms of--"
"And what do you mean by better?"
"Uh, it, um, has the same calorie density of some sugars . . . "
"Is it metabolized the same way as those sugars?"
"Uh . . . . "
"Does it have the same insulin threshold as those sugars?"
". . . . . look over there!"
And then they hide behind a cornrow.
What would be the more specific claim? Maybe I underestimate most Americans, but I can't really think of anything more specific that wouldn't cause heads to explode.
I like the "fine if used in moderation" thing as she pours liquid sugar into a cup and doesn't mention how it hinders moderation and how much should actually be used compared to table sugar.
Incenjucar on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
The Corn Lobby has basically staked their future on the argument that "hey, it's no worse than other sugars!" Which, at least according to some studies, is false. But they use very tricky syntactical arguments that fool people into thinking they're being told something they're not actually being told.
"It's no worse than other sugars!"
"Okay, but which sugars? There are many different kinds."
"Well, um, it's better than some forms of--"
"And what do you mean by better?"
"Uh, it, um, has the same calorie density of some sugars . . . "
"Is it metabolized the same way as those sugars?"
"Uh . . . . "
"Does it have the same insulin threshold as those sugars?"
". . . . . look over there!"
And then they hide behind a cornrow.
What would be the more specific claim? Maybe I underestimate most Americans, but I can't really think of anything more specific that wouldn't cause heads to explode.
The whole thing is misleading because the commercials try to make a false assumption about comprable usage of HFCS to other sugars.
It's akin to someone drinking five gallons of cheap whisky a day and telling others, "Hey, the alcohol in this whisky is metabolized the same way as the alcohol in that Heineken you had at the bar last night! So it's the same thing! Just as bad!"
The Corn Lobby has tried their best to also turn the argument into a personal accountability issue, saying that its your job to figure out your diet and temper the volume of HFCS you ingest, all the while getting subsidies to provide it cheaply and spending billions of dollars lobbying to keep the public uninformed on packaging.
Again, it's akin to a poison company telling you its your job to make sure you don't eat too much poison, while at the same time selling their poison cheaply and lobbying to prevent people from finding out how much poison is in something.
I honestly agree with the 'it's your job to decide what goes in your body' argument.
But not when you have anything as ridiculous as the corn lobby distorting the economy of that decision.
US corn subsidies are something I'm confident the vast majority of Americans would want removed if they knew about them. It's a shame politicians don't want to talk about it.
I don't think they need perfect knowledge. Just representatives and educational institutions willing to impart actually relevant and accurate information.
As the example has already been used: no one is out there telling you that methanol is just another alcohol. No one should be telling you that HFCS is the same as table sugar --even if it were otherwise the same- because HFCS is hugely subsidized by taxpayers and would never be in our food otherwise.
Edit: by the way, I can get an app that let's me take a picture of anything on my phone and see if there are comparable images on google images. I think we're closer than you think to a 'communal information' glut. Centuries closer than hundreds of years.
I didn't say perfect knowledge.
Our culture is incredibly immersed in ignorance and anti-intellectualism with a heavy dose of outright deception. The people who know what any of this means are a distinct minority. It takes generations to remove this kind of toxic falsehood from the culture.
That app is to make up for people not wanting to bother to learn. So.
*cough* there's only one western nation with a big focus on anti-intellectualism.
And the app is made more specifically for people who like the idea of indexed information. Is google around because it was made for anti-intellectuals?
I think the arguments for removing the influence of the corn lobby (and the ridiculous subsidies they have foisted on us) are separate from those for removing their products from our food.
I don't have any problem with HFCS being used in food. If you don't want to eat it, then don't. The fact that people don't understand nutrition is an education issue and quite separate (and it extends way beyond HFCS).
I do have a problem with it being artificially cheap at my expense, though. I feel less than thrilled at subsidizing someone else's Mountain Dew addiction.
Posts
HFCS isn't very high in fructose compared to sucrose anyway; if I remember correctly it's something like 55%/45% fructose/glucose in HFCS as used in most products compared to 50%/50% for sucrose.
[Edit: Wait, I'll quote Wikipedia:
"The most widely used varieties of high-fructose corn syrup are: HFCS 55 (mostly used in soft drinks), approximately 55% fructose and 42% glucose; and HFCS 42 (used in many foods and baked goods), approximately 42% fructose and 53% glucose.[5] HFCS-90, approximately 90% fructose and 10% glucose, is used in small quantities for specialty applications, but primarily is used to blend with HFCS 42 to make HFCS 55.[6]"]
"Sugar is sugar" is not the problem; it's just ignorant. It's in everything, is the problem. Everything that fructose has no right to be in. Combined with the effect of large amounts of fructose on the human body, and you get epidemic-like problems.
Let 'em eat fucking pineapples!
This right here is the key to it. Once you stop drinking poisonously sweet stuff for a little while, it's easy to remain eating moderate amounts of sugar than not. I don't even like most non-diet soda anymore. Ditto for, say, cake frosting.
I'm still a sucker for chocolate though.
Not anything Hershey's though. I lived 30 minutes from there and learned to hate the stuff. Fucking going to the amusement park every goddamn summer. I HATE THEIR RIDES. Why won't you listen to me!?
Let 'em eat fucking pineapples!
Because the only water that gets marketed is bottled water, which is a bane on the environment and generally comes from municipal tap water or - at best - a natural spring that provides minimal nutritional differences (although flavor varies by locale due to minor impurities).
The problem is that, like many other social problems, you have to get people to stop wanting sweetness. How do you do that? I have no idea.
Well shock collars, or a multi-generational educational campaign.
The shock collars would probably be more fun though.
"It's no worse than other sugars!"
"Okay, but which sugars? There are many different kinds."
"Well, um, it's better than some forms of--"
"And what do you mean by better?"
"Uh, it, um, has the same calorie density of some sugars . . . "
"Is it metabolized the same way as those sugars?"
"Uh . . . . "
"Does it have the same insulin threshold as those sugars?"
". . . . . look over there!"
And then they hide behind a cornrow.
Sure they are! It's just like alcohol is alcohol. Ethanol, methanol, propanol, butanol...they're all the same so it's fine to drink any of them.
Also on Steam and PSN: twobadcats
Sweeteners rather than sugar would probably work, although be far less fun.
HFCS is 55/45 fructose/glucose. Sucrose (cane sugar) is 50/50.
HFCS is a little worse. Mostly though because it's so cheap. But the problem is sugar in general, regardless of it specific form. I see a lot of corn bashing in this thread but not a whole hell of a lot else - you want people to stop eating diabetes? Then they first need to stop eating/drinking sugary foods on a daily basis. Don't go pretending the problem would go away if you replaced HFCS with sucrose.
The species Stevia rebaudiana, commonly known as sweetleaf, sweet leaf, sugarleaf, or simply stevia, is widely grown for its sweet leaves. As a sweetener and sugar substitute, stevia's taste has a slower onset and longer duration than that of sugar.
With its extracts having up to 300 times the sweetness of sugar, stevia has garnered attention with the rise in demand for low-carbohydrate, low-sugar food alternatives. Medical research has also shown possible benefits of stevia in treating obesity and high blood pressure. Because stevia has a negligible effect on blood glucose, it is attractive as a natural sweetener to people on carbohydrate-controlled diets.
A small bottle of it lasts me for years...
When you take the concentrate straight.
So what I'm saying is for all practical purposes it's dandy.
It is pretty baller stuff. Just the tiniest dash will sweeten stuff that a couple teaspoons of sugar would be needed for.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
I think she might have broken her tastebuds.
I have heard of cutting artificial sweeteners with cane sugar, as it tends to require far less sugar, and kills the weird aftertaste real sugar has.
It's not a bad move, I just am not offended by fake sugar's taste, so I don't need to do it.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
I find the easiest solution is not to buy sugary stuff. Changing your behavior at the point of purchase rather than the point of consumption is far, far easier, since you (presumably) buy groceries far less often than you eat.
I mean if I'm going to ingest sugar I'd like it to not taste like unwiped ass
Can you tell the difference between Pepsi and Pepsi Throwback?
The problem I have with HFCS is that it's so damn sweet. A tablespoon of pure HFCS is gagging sweet.
Yes, I can tell the difference between sodas that use cane sugar and HFCS. We have a Dr. Pepper factory here that makes cane sugar Dr. Pepper year round and man it tastes so much better.
It's unquestionably lighter tasting.
HFCS sodas taste heavier and more syrupy, like it sticks to your mouth more or something.
The mouthfeel is way off.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
I can. Cleaner finish on the Throwback, with less grimy feeling on my teeth.
Steam ID XBL: JohnnyChopsocky PSN:Stud_Beefpile WiiU:JohnnyChopsocky
What would be the more specific claim? Maybe I underestimate most Americans, but I can't really think of anything more specific that wouldn't cause heads to explode.
The whole thing is misleading because the commercials try to make a false assumption about comprable usage of HFCS to other sugars.
It's akin to someone drinking five gallons of cheap whisky a day and telling others, "Hey, the alcohol in this whisky is metabolized the same way as the alcohol in that Heineken you had at the bar last night! So it's the same thing! Just as bad!"
The Corn Lobby has tried their best to also turn the argument into a personal accountability issue, saying that its your job to figure out your diet and temper the volume of HFCS you ingest, all the while getting subsidies to provide it cheaply and spending billions of dollars lobbying to keep the public uninformed on packaging.
Again, it's akin to a poison company telling you its your job to make sure you don't eat too much poison, while at the same time selling their poison cheaply and lobbying to prevent people from finding out how much poison is in something.
which is a shitty advertisement campaign when the answer is yes, your products are killing us.
But not when you have anything as ridiculous as the corn lobby distorting the economy of that decision.
US corn subsidies are something I'm confident the vast majority of Americans would want removed if they knew about them. It's a shame politicians don't want to talk about it.
We are hundreds of years from that point AT BEST.
As the example has already been used: no one is out there telling you that methanol is just another alcohol. No one should be telling you that HFCS is the same as table sugar --even if it were otherwise the same- because HFCS is hugely subsidized by taxpayers and would never be in our food otherwise.
Edit: by the way, I can get an app that let's me take a picture of anything on my phone and see if there are comparable images on google images. I think we're closer than you think to a 'communal information' glut. Centuries closer than hundreds of years.
Our culture is incredibly immersed in ignorance and anti-intellectualism with a heavy dose of outright deception. The people who know what any of this means are a distinct minority. It takes generations to remove this kind of toxic falsehood from the culture.
That app is to make up for people not wanting to bother to learn. So.
And the app is made more specifically for people who like the idea of indexed information. Is google around because it was made for anti-intellectuals?
I don't have any problem with HFCS being used in food. If you don't want to eat it, then don't. The fact that people don't understand nutrition is an education issue and quite separate (and it extends way beyond HFCS).
I do have a problem with it being artificially cheap at my expense, though. I feel less than thrilled at subsidizing someone else's Mountain Dew addiction.