THat's exactly true. How would it be different? I'm not familiar with all the enzymes involved, but once cane sugar is hydrolyzed (likely done by an amylase or in the stomach acid) they all become the same thing. Fructose and glucose. In sucrose, they're bonded together, in HFCS, they're not. That's it. That's the only difference.
THat's exactly true. How would it be different? I'm not familiar with all the enzymes involved, but once cane sugar is hydrolyzed (likely done by an amylase or in the stomach acid) they all become the same thing. Fructose and glucose. In sucrose, they're bonded together, in HFCS, they're not. That's it. That's the only difference.
Well, sucralose is actually the only one I'm afraid of. It's basically chlorinated sucrose, and the chlorine prevents your body from metabolizing it. However, it still has the same "shape", so it fits into the flavor receptor that makes it sweet. Unfortunately, alkyl chlorides and the like have been implicated to be carcinogenic, since they readily participate in free radical processes.
I never once said that cane sugar was healthier or anything like that. In fact, my original reply said that switching to a cane sugar soda isn't going to make you lose weight over drinking a HFCS soda. You need to stop drinking soda to accomplish that.
BUT, there is evidence to show that the two substances do not react the same in the body. It obviously needs more study to specifically look at HFCS rather than fructose in general, but its incorrect to say that the two substances are identical. They are not.
BUT, there is evidence to show that the two substances do not react the same in the body. It obviously needs more study to specifically look at HFCS rather than fructose in general, but its incorrect to say that the two substances are identical. They are not.
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 57,168
- 18,798
- 146
Every valid study done shows NO difference in how the body reacts to Sucrose vs HFCS. And it makes since, because the two are virtually identical. Sucrose merely has the Fru/Glu bonded while HFCS does not, but the digestive system quickly breaks that bond and then the Fru/Glu acts exactly the same way it does in Sucrose.
Too many companies benefit and use HFCS for it to be banned anytime soon in my opinion. Although I do think it should be banned.
Dublin Dr. Pepper, but it's hard to find unless you go to Dublin, Texas. Most Dr. Pepper products are made with HFCS unfortunately.
My tongue is part of my body, and it reacts differently to cane sugar vs HFCS, because one is a lot tastier than the other. Digestively they may differ, but if even our crappy taste buds can tell the difference, then I don't think it's accurate to say they are "virtually identical" except perhaps as far as metabolism is concerned.
Glad we agree that your wording is, as usual, exaggerated. The body does react differently, because the tongue is part of the body. Thanks for playing, though. See you next time you use grossly inaccurate wording.
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 57,168
- 18,798
- 146
Fail.
The topic of the thread was "Better for us" and the body addressed the irrational fears that HFCS being used in place of sugar was the cause of obesity. It had nothing to do with taste.
But you may want to get that hard-on you have for me checked out. I hear they're dangerous if they last longer than 4 hours.
If you say so, fool. Go ahead and keep drinking your shitty tasting HFCS drinks if you want. The main purpose for HFCS is as a sugar replacement, where it fails miserably if present in any perceptible amount.
Also worth noting, HFCS in soda is typically 55/45 and not 50/50. But I guess a 5% difference still means it is "virtually identical". :roll:
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 57,168
- 18,798
- 146
You really need to get that hard-on checked. Seriously, you come at me all hostile and argue petty semantics that aren't even in the topic and act like you've trumped me? Really? Seriously?
Wow...
And as I have pointed out in valid study after study, the mere 5-10% difference has no measurable difference in how the body reacts. No valid study has found otherwise.
Meanwhile, taste is subjective. Anyone who argues subjective topics from any self appointed position of superiority is the true fool. If you note, I have not discussed the taste of HFCS nor will I. My personal preferences are irrelevant to the topic at hand.
I thought it would be enough to demonstrate the obviously exaggerated nature of your wording by noting that the tongue is part of the body, but clearly a semantic argument is not enough for you to refrain from using grossly exaggerated wording and attempt to pass it off as true, so here goes:
Study after study? You linked exactly ONE actual study, and attempted to cover this up by linking it from two different sites. The other link you provided, one which is an analysis of existing studies, stated that more research is needed. If there were conclusive evidence that there is no difference, as you repeatedly suggest, then they would not suggest more study on this matter. Furthermore, in the ONE study you linked, at least one difference was noted, that of appetite, which was higher for sucrose.
Also worth noting, the study you reference was funded by the "American Beverage Institute," as were some of the other studies on this subject. I'd call the results of studies funded by those who have immense interest in the outcome more than a little suspect.
Despite all of this, you choose to use exaggerated wording and claim that the OP is wrong because he believes, and I quote:
Everything in the above quote is accurate according to the very studies you linked..
Your reply was:
The first sentence is false. The study you linked showed a difference. Second sentence is also false. They are not identical by any stretch of the imagination: they taste different, they have different affects on appetite, and HFCS has approximately 10% more fructose chemically. Fortunately you actually go on to write something truthful afterwards, for once.
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 57,168
- 18,798
- 146
I see a lot of words trying to disagree with everything I have posted, but no proof of anything but your irrational hatred of me.
The studies I posted studies concluding nothing of the kind:
There are NO valid studies showing any signifigant difference in how the body reacts to HFCS vs sucrose. You can keep vainly trying to disagree while spending the majority of your typing being insulting, but you cannot change that fact.
So tell me, what is it about ME that bothers you? Because you obviously have no valid argument that HFCS is worse (or better) for you than sucrose and are merely targeting me with insults and hostility.
I don't "hate" you, I merely think that you use terrible reasoning or exaggerated wording in some of your varied pro-corporation arguments. This is one of them. Instead of correctly asserting that there is not sufficient evidence to support the claims that HFCS is worse for you than sugar, you instead take it beyond anything logically or scientifically valid and claim that there IS sufficient evidence to indicate that it is FALSE. This is simply not true, and a typical manner in which you attempt to win a pro-corporate argument. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. That you continue to claim otherwise is rather humorous.
What the hell? Can you not read? It says right in the bolded part that there was a difference in "desire to eat". See it? I can try to convince ATOT admins to let me make it a bigger font if that will help.
I do not need to have an argument that it is either worse or better for you. You are the one taking a position that it is definitely NOT worse and you claim that science supports you on this matter. It does not. You have yet to provide any valid study that concludes that there is no difference whatsoever. Two of the three links you provided were to the same study, funded by an untrustworthy source, which concluded that there was at least one difference, one that warranted further study according to the conclusion of the study that they wrote. The other link you provided suggested that there isn't sufficient evidence but that more studies are needed. That article took the CORRECT position that HFCS doomsaying is perhaps overstated. It does not take your position which is that HFCS is NOT a danger in any way and that studies have proven it.
Deeko
Lifer
- Jun 16, 2000
- 30,213
- 12
- 81
Why?????
This banning of food ingredients that the media hypes up to be the next coming of satan is absurd. Don't you understand? IT WILL BE REPLACED. As long as people still want their food to taste a certain way, the food manufacturers will find a way. Just like trans fats came into play after saturated fats were shunned. Now what? Everyone is focused on carbs these days, so we'll see saturated fats come back.
The same thing would happen if HFCS were banned. A similar, just as bad substance would be used, and we'd have to find a new evil.
People need to learn that you lose weight by putting down the goddamn fork.
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 57,168
- 18,798
- 146
Pro-corporation? Wow. I guess we found another hard-on you have, huh? I'm pro rational. If that favors a corporation, so be it. I have no vested interest in any corporation that makes HFCS, therefore no reason to be biased. I am a rational person, Torpid. I do not take sides based on idealism. Only the facts.
Did YOU read it? It states people are hungrier after eating something with sucrose vs HFCS. Meaning if anything, sugar makes people hungrier sooner and more likely to eat more than HFCS.
My points have been valid and relevant. Yours have been semantics and irrational hatred.
And for your info, I oppose the sugar tariffs as I favor free trade. If it were up to me, sugar would cost a fraction of what HFCS costs and manufactures would naturally switch.
So flying out the window now is your assertion of my bias while your own bias just broke down the fucking door.
My arguments have been based on facts. Not idealism, bias or subjective taste. There are NO valid studies to show ANY significant difference if how the body reacts to HFCS vs sucrose, nor is there any valid link between HFCS vs sucrose and obesity. None.
That's the facts.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter