• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Pepsi Co. going back to sugar in Pepsi & Mt. Dew

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
I'd be interested in comparing these with the American products. I've had pop with sugar cane in it, Dublin Dr. Pepper, Dutch Coke, Mexican Pepsi, Moxie, etc. I've also had the sugar cane products abroad in Germany and all the pop here in Hong Kong uses sugar cane. But once I started drinking the sugar cane products regularly, I noticed that they weren't as sweet or as strong in flavor as the American counterparts. I do not know if this is due to the use of sugar cane as opposed to high fructose corn syrup or if this is due to variation in regional recipes. The German sodas were decidedly weaker in my opinion. Seeing though that in Germany you generally have to order all your beverages (you'd be hard pressed to find a drinking fountain or a restaurant that serves water with your meal for free), it wouldn't surprise me if they weakened the sodas so that they could be consumed more regularly in place of water.

Anyway, after having the sugared drinks abroad I'm kind of "meh" about them. Just having sugar doesn't mean it's going to be sweeter or better, I think it depends more on the recipe of the drink.
 
Originally posted by: GundamW
I've been getting Jones Pure Cane Soda from the local Vons/Safeways store.

I love Green Apple and Strawberry Lime.
Click to expand...

yeah, I love their stuff, however I find it mind boggling that they offer a sugar free product...they have such a good selling point with actual cane sugar that to offer a sugar free version just seems ridiculous - although I guess they still have unique enough sugar free flavors...but still, diet tastes like garbage no matter what flavor they try to cover it up with, might as well slam back a much cheaper diet drink if you absolutely need the flavored carbonation.
 
We discussed HFCS in my nutrition class (I am in Med School, so this makes it count, lol) just recently... basically here is how it is... All the research that is being funded on it is coming from two groups. The Pro-HFCS research is being done by the Corn Lobby and the Anti-HFCS is being done by the Cane Sugar Lobby.

Before the Cane Sugar lobby got heavily involved (a few years ago), there was some unbiased research that was done by a couple universities that showed it to do significant liver damage in rats who were fed a HFCS diet. Since that handful of studies, there hasn't been much good research coming out. All of it has been pretty biased and funded by different organizations for their own reasons (think of the "researcher" from Thank You For Smoking).

With all that being said, the process to make HFCS is absurd and expensive. The only reason it ever took off is because our tax dollars were sunk into it. It is cheaper because it is subsidized. If companies didn't embrace it there would never be a demand for it. It is one of those unnecessary things that have now become common place for seemingly no reason. Just take a look at a can of Corn. The put freaking HFCS in it. Why? Fuck if I know; they just do.

I personally try to stay away from the stuff not only because it is seemingly bad for you but it is also a stupid product to begin with.
 
Originally posted by: SirStev0
We discussed HFCS in my nutrition class (I am in Med School, so this makes it count, lol) just recently... basically here is how it is... All the research that is being funded on it is coming from two groups. The Pro-HFCS research is being done by the Corn Lobby and the Anti-HFCS is being done by the Cane Sugar Lobby.

Before the Cane Sugar lobby got heavily involved (a few years ago), there was some unbiased research that was done by a couple universities that showed it to do significant liver damage in rats who were fed a HFCS diet. Since that handful of studies, there hasn't been much good research coming out. All of it has been pretty biased and funded by different organizations for their own reasons (think of the "researcher" from Thank You For Smoking).

With all that being said, the process to make HFCS is absurd and expensive. The only reason it ever took off is because our tax dollars were sunk into it. It is cheaper because it is subsidized. If companies didn't embrace it there would never be a demand for it. It is one of those unnecessary things that have now become common place for seemingly no reason. Just take a look at a can of Corn. The put freaking HFCS in it. Why? Fuck if I know; they just do.

I personally try to stay away from the stuff not only because it is seemingly bad for you but it is also a stupid product to begin with.
Click to expand...

I know this may come as a shock to you, but your teacher is full of shit.

HFCS became the norm not because it was subsidized, but because sugar had huge tarriffs put on it in a vain effort to protect US sugarcane growers who could not compete with foreign growers. This made HFCS cheaper to use, and food makers quickly shifted. The switch to HFCS had little to nothing to do with corn or HFCS itself and everything to do with protectionism surrounding sugar.

Secondly, the studies she refers to focused on fructose, and not HFCS vs sugar. In fact, all the studies people claim shows harm from HFCS in fact, does nothing of the sort, they show the danger of fructose. Sugar is 50/50 fructose/glucose. So is HFCS at 55/45. They are the same and the body metabolizes them exactly the same. In fact, no valid study shows any difference in health between people who comsume the same amount of calories of sugar, vs HFCS.

And the rat/liver study is recent, not old.

A study in mice suggests that fructose increases obesity.[30] Large quantities of fructose stimulate the liver to produce triglycerides, promotes glycation of proteins and induces insulin resistance.[31] According to one study, the average American consumes nearly 70 pounds of HFCS a year, marking HFCS as a major contributor to the rising rates of obesity in the last generation. [32]

In a 2007 study, rats were fed a diet high in fat and HFCS and kept them relatively sedentary for 16 weeks in an attempt to emulate the diet and lifestyle of many Americans.[33] The rats were not forced to eat, but were able to eat as much as they wanted; they consumed a large amount of food, suggesting that fructose suppresses the sensation of fullness. Within four weeks, the rats showed early signs of fatty liver disease and type II diabetes. Shapiro et al. fed rats a high-fructose diet for six months and compared them to rats that had been fed a fructose-free diet. Although the rats that had consumed high levels of fructose showed no change in weight, when compared to the rats that had consumed no fructose fat, levels of leptin in the blood indicated the development of leptin resistance. When the rats were switched to a high-fat diet, the leptin-resistant rats gained more weight than those who had not developed the resistance.[34]
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_fructose_corn_syrup

You'll note that there is no sugarcane control group. Only HFCS and a fructose free (sugar free) control. It's meaningless to use this to claim HFCS is worse than sugar, because sugar would have had exactly the same effect. Why? Because both contain roughly 50% fructose.

Is fructose bad for you? Yep, in anything but extreme moderation, fructose is far from good for you. Be it from sugar OR HFCS it's just not a good thing to take in excess.

Loading up on sugars has ALWAYS been bad for you. Sugar is a tool for instant energy, not a daily food for sedentary people.

Edit: To head off the bullshit let me reiterate that I have no interest in HFCS or corn growers. In fact, I fully support the dropping of all sugar tariffs and loath trade protectionism. I have recently AND in the past been consistent on opposing protectionism in any form. Why do I "defend" HFCS? I don't. I hate baseless hysteria and the twisted, highly self defeating notion that obesity problems have an external boogyman.
 
you're not suppose to have HFCS on passover? wtf? Anyhow I thought passover was just banning foods with yeast, why the ban on corn or bread products if there is no yeast in them?? 😕
 
Originally posted by: Amused
Sugar is 50/50 fructose/glucose.
Click to expand...

No, standard "table" sugar is 100% Sucrose, a la cane or beet sugar. While Sucrose *is* a disaccharide of Fructose and Glucose, it's inaccurate and potentially misleading to suggest that the sugar you buy @ Market Basket in a 5 Lb bag is "fructose and glucose" because the body has to simplify Sucrose into those 2 monosaccharides before it can fully metabolize them. This distinction is important, because it requires some of the body's energy to break Sucrose down into Fructose and Glucose, while ingestion of monosaccharides (a la HFCS) is more efficient and direct.

Chronic, direct ingestion of large amounts of Glucose can wear out the pancreas and this is the prime suspect Re: the onset of Type 2 Diabetes.

Long story short -- the human body's metabolism didn't evolve around a subsistence based upon simple carbs like the hummingbird's, and we ought not pretend otherwise.
 
Originally posted by: Painman
Originally posted by: Amused
Sugar is 50/50 fructose/glucose.
Click to expand...

No, standard "table" sugar is 100% Sucrose, a la cane or beet sugar. While Sucrose *is* a disaccharide of Fructose and Glucose, it's inaccurate and potentially misleading to suggest that the sugar you buy @ Market Basket in a 5 Lb bag is "fructose and glucose" because the body has to simplify Sucrose into those 2 monosaccharides before it can fully metabolize them. This distinction is important, because it requires some of the body's energy to break Sucrose down into Fructose and Glucose, while ingestion of monosaccharides (a la HFCS) is more efficient and direct.

Chronic, direct ingestion of large amounts of Glucose can wear out the pancreas and this is the prime suspect Re: the onset of Type 2 Diabetes.

Long story short -- the human body's metabolism didn't evolve around a subsistence based upon simple carbs like the hummingbird's, and we ought not pretend otherwise.
Click to expand...

Um, yes. The body treats the two the same and NO valid study has shown there to be any difference in health between people who consume equal calories of sugar vs HFCS.

The energy required to seperate the fructose and glucose in sugar is neglegable. It happens in the stomach acid with no effort. So, for all intents and purposes the body sees both sugar and HFCS as the same mix of fructose and glucose.
 
Originally posted by: Gibsons
I wonder if they'll keep the total calories the same. The real benefit of fructose is it's very sweet, so you can use less of it to get a desired level of sweetness.
Click to expand...

There's arguments that HFCS causes insulin levels to rise more than sugar, causing a higher chance of weight gain. There have been many links to the replacement of sugar with HFCS in the mid-80's and the obesity epidemic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top