the problem with HFCS is that is used in EVERYTHING. we eat foods sweetened with HFCS that before had no added sugar, thats the problem.

6/29/2009 7:50:37 PM

HFCS

ererer ererereer

Sugar

ererer ererereer

HFCS

ererer ererereer

Sugar

6/29/2009 8:18:53 PM

Pollans main point is not weight gain. Its that real food like the proverbial apple has millions of additional compounds not necessarily identified in terms of their interaction with the 35000 genes we have. Its a dance that has been calibrated over millions of years of evolution that we have effectively undone in 50 years of manufactured food.

6/29/2009 11:17:14 PM

Quote :

"so many foods that naturally don't have sugar in them, and there's no reason for it other than cheap filler. Check out a loaf of bread next time you go to the store "

so maybe i'm not sure how you are intending to use the word "naturally" here, but bread isnt exactly "natural." and if you mean naturally as in historically, well bread is again a bad example b/c many many varieties of bread use sugar, molasses, honey or some other form of sweetener

i think the majority of the posters are correct, simple sugars are generally bad for you. i think one of the large areas of concern with HFCS is that if a large amount of your diet is made from factory farm meats and processed foods with hfcs, then you are receiving a very large amount of your calories basically from one source, corn.

6/29/2009 11:35:45 PM

Quote :

"I also get Nature's Own 100% Wheat or Whole Grain bread. They don't have HFCS either."

i'm with you on this one...my gf is a pescatarian and one of her degrees is in nutrition...she's not the bitchy "zomg meat is evil" or "zomg all those foodz are bad for you" kind of person, but one of her biggest things is getting the nature's own bread

i had always bought the store-brand "100% whole wheat" bread until she came along (mostly because i'm a cheap bastard and assumed that 100% whole wheat was 100% whole wheat)...but if you compare nature's own and ANY other bread, it's blatantly obvious that the nature's own is less bad for you (i won't say it's "good for you, per se, but it's most definitely better than any other reasonably-priced commercial bread out there)...and it tastes better, too

[Edited on June 30, 2009 at 7:40 AM. Reason : .]

6/30/2009 7:39:32 AM

Is this discussion concerning the new Mountain Dew by chance?

6/30/2009 8:35:44 AM

no but i want it to

6/30/2009 10:24:30 AM

Quote :

"I do know there's a brand that sweetens their cranberry juice with apple juice though."

quite a few brands, including wal-mart, sweeten their juices with grape or apple juice.

6/30/2009 10:38:55 AM

^^ I'm drinking some right now. It's alright. Not as sweet. Not as "acidic" or bubbly feeling in my mouth. It's a tame version of the old stuff imo. I don't mind drinking it, though I probably won't get it again. I love the can's graphics. It's all retro looking. I like it.

6/30/2009 10:44:18 AM

i like it way better than the throwback pepsi

6/30/2009 10:50:52 AM

SO IF THIS INCREASES OUR CORN CONSUMPTION



CAN I SAFELY ASSUME THAT ME AND MY BUDDIES CAN REFER TO THE FATTIES AS "CORN FED?"

6/30/2009 11:07:14 AM

well, they most certainly are. If they eat a lot of beef and pork, especially from fast-food places, then you can be sure that 1) the cows/pigs were raised almost entirely on corn (something they were not evolved to do), and 2) there is probably corn-filler and HFCS sweeteners in the hamburger patties

6/30/2009 12:57:41 PM

Quote :

"IT'S ALL MARKETING"

ha, are you alluding to a certain food science professor?

6/30/2009 11:10:09 PM

here's another new post today on this topic
http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=568

Quote :

"Meanwhile, there is a growing body of scientific evidence, approaching consensus, that by far the dominant factor in weight control is the amount of calories one consumes, not the form in which those calories come. The best science-based nutritional advice for weight control seems to be - exercise regularly and practice portion control. For other health concerns, like heart health and avoiding diabetes - eat a well-balanced diet and get more of your calories from plants than animals. "

Quote :

"Simple chemistry helps put HFCS into some perspective. Table sugar is sucrose, which is a combination of fructose and glucose - two common simple sugars. Corn syrup is mainly glucose, but HFCS is manufactured to have about 50% fructose and 50% glucose - the same ratio as sucrose or table sugar. There are metabolic differences between fructose and glucose. Often studies showing that pure fructose can alter sugar and fat metabolism are presented as evidence against HFCS, missing the point that the ratio of fructose to glucose in the American diet has not changed with the introduction of HFCS. A recent review of the literature published in the Journal of Nutrition, regarding the association of HFCS and obesity, concluded: The panel concluded that evidence from ecological studies linking HFCS consumption with rising BMI rates is unreliable. Unlike some prominent epidemiologists, the expert panel concluded that the evidence from epidemiologic studies and randomized controlled trials is inconclusive. They also noted that there were inadequate data available that distinguish between HFCS consumption and sucrose consumption with respect to weight gain. Further, they acknowledged that while the sweetener level and type have changed over time, the fructose:glucose ratio in the U.S. food supply has remained the same for 50 y. Finally, the panel concluded that HCFS did not contribute to weight gain any differently than other energy sources. In other words - HCFS is not the boogeyman. It is a distraction from the real issue - an increase in overall caloric intake. There may also have been a rise in total sugar intake, but the types of sugars have not changed. A diet with a large proportion of simple sugars is not a good idea because such a diet is also likely to contain too many calories, and high sugar intake increases the risk of diabetes."

7/1/2009 5:15:36 PM

Quote :

"Simple chemistry helps put HFCS into some perspective. Table sugar is sucrose, which is a combination of fructose and glucose - two common simple sugars. Corn syrup is mainly glucose, but HFCS is manufactured to have about 50% fructose and 50% glucose - the same ratio as sucrose or table sugar."

why don't they taste the same?

7/1/2009 5:54:16 PM

That's because HFCS is a MIXTURE of fructose and glucose.

And sugar (sucrose) is a COMPOUND made up of fructose and glucose.

They both have the same relative sweetness, but have different tastes.

7/1/2009 8:11:07 PM

so, then...it's a bit misleading to compare the two and saying they're made of the same components when, while that might technically be true, the chemistry behind them is different

not that i care...i'm not a "ZOMG HFCS IS GOING TO KILL YOU AND/OR MAKE YOU FAT" kind of person...but still

7/2/2009 7:53:44 AM

with sucrose, your body metabolizes it down to glucose and fructose and then metabolizes those in order to do whatever needs to be done

with HFCS, your body doesn't have to break down sucrose into glucose and fructose, which means its doesn't have to do as much work, which means you're gonna get fat

7/2/2009 3:21:25 PM

Quote :

"with sucrose, your body metabolizes it down to glucose and fructose and then metabolizes those in order to do whatever needs to be done with HFCS, your body doesn't have to break down sucrose into glucose and fructose, which means its doesn't have to do as much work, which means you're gonna get fat "

I really hope that's either a joke or you're just ignorant, otherwise it's a pretty specious argument. Your oversimplification leads me to believe that it's a joke, but with all the idiots in the world, it's sometimes difficult to tell.

Breaking down sucrose (50:50 fructose:glucose) is a simple 1-step acid hydrolysis. That one step, just like almost any other enzymatic reaction, is not enough to mean the difference between "getting fat" and not.

The main problem here is what has been mentioned by several others in this thread--that people consume more calories than they expend. In addition, many people are insulin-insensitive, either due to genetic reasons or because they over-consume high-density carbs (mostly simple sugars, but for some people, also potatoes, pasta, etc).

7/8/2009 11:39:00 PM