Provide the link. The way you described it is they asked which they'd like, then gave them samples which were labeled. I don't think that sounds like a correct double blind test, and does not tell you if people could tell a difference in taste, but rather they are biased towards a brand. Even if they deliberately mislabeled them and the people couldn't tell that it wasn't correct taste for that brand, it introduced bias into the test and again, doesn't say that people can't tell a difference in taste between the brands, but that they can't tell the difference between how it should taste for that brand.
I've had throwback of Dew and Pepsi, I thought they were both good but nothing spectacular. Better, but not amazing.
That said, I can't find any damn Dr. Pepper throwback for the life of me
Yeah, I haven't seen any of the Heritage Dr Pepper and would guess its regional. I'd love to try that as I drink Dr Pepper more than the others. I'd also love to see a cane sugar versions of the Cherry Coke/Pepsi/Dr Pepper. I tried some of the other brands (Jones, can't remember the others), but they weren't all that good and are much more expensive.
Last edited:
I saw Pepsi Throwback when I was back in the US last month, but didn't get to try it. Living in Korea, I guess one of the few benefits is all the Coke/Pepsi products are made with sugar. All of them taste better than their US counterparts, but let me tell you, Cherry Coke is by far the most improved. I don't drink Cherry Coke in the States because it's too syrupy, but the sugar-sweetened one here is heaven on earth. Coke should seriously consider selling it in the States.
You had to go and say that didn't you? It definitely seems like it would benefit a lot. I can't drink hardly any Cherry Coke before the aftertaste and syrupy flavor gets to me.
zerocool84
Lifer
- Nov 11, 2004
- 36,041
- 472
- 126
Exactly and it saying sugar on the car will give bias to people and make them think it tastes better. It saying organic will magically taste better. It saying from fresh mountain springs will make it taste better.
eits
Lifer
um, no it's not. fructose causes insulin resistance, among other things, in high enough amounts. there's more of it in hfcs than in regular sugar. ergo, over time, hfcs in drinks has more of an affect on you than you realize if taken on a frequent basis.
Sugar Mt Dew = awesome
Sugar Pepsi = better, but not as big a difference
sugar Dr Pepper = not so sure about this one
Sugar Pepsi = better, but not as big a difference
sugar Dr Pepper = not so sure about this one
kranky
Elite Member
- Oct 9, 1999
- 21,019
- 156
- 106
No doubt true for some people. But I would bet $1000 I can tell the difference between Coke and Pepsi 10 times in a row in a blind taste test. They just taste very different to me. Maybe not to everyone.
A lot of people don't even know that its supposed to taste different but they still say it does. I wonder why that is, maybe because it actually does taste different? I'm just baffled that you're even arguing that there isn't a difference in taste. And don't put words into people's mouths. Saying it tastes different is not the same as saying it tastes better. Are you under the delusion that they're doing this for health reasons? Notice it doesn't say it tastes better or is healthier for you, just that it is made with real sugar.
You've been shown you're wrong on this about a billion times, why do you keep trying to make this point?
How exactly does 42/58 mix of HFCS have more fructose than sugar? Oh that's right, it doesn't, it has less. As you even state, [and the key being] high enough amounts, which as was pointed out to you before in one of those links none of the studies done have shown that on a typical diet, you'd ever get to this extra level of fructose for it to screw you up like you keep claiming. If you're consuming enough pop to make the little bit extra fructose that the 55 mix has matter more than if you were drinking one with cane sugar, then that level of sugar alone is going to fuck you up and would definitely screw up your bodies ability to handle sugar.
sdifox
No Lifer
- Sep 30, 2005
- 100,207
- 17,891
- 126
err, I don't know about elsewhere, but on Canadian Coke cans it doesn't just say sugar. The words glucose-fructose follows.
Only the people really concerned about what they drink or eat will read the ingredient list. And those people should not be drinking pop at all
It's death in a can.
Last edited:
Gibsons
Lifer
- Aug 14, 2001
- 12,530
- 35
- 91
You've had your nose rubbed in this before. Every study done has found no significant difference in effect of 50/50 vs 55/45. You've even posted links to these studies yourself claiming they supported your opinion. Just mind-boggling.
sdifox
No Lifer
- Sep 30, 2005
- 100,207
- 17,891
- 126
Gibsons
Lifer
- Aug 14, 2001
- 12,530
- 35
- 91
Interesting, if you look at the ingredients, the throwback differs in more than just the sugar. The throwback has a little more sodium and phosphorous, and (apparently) less potassium.
http://www.pepsiproductfacts.com/infobyproduct.php
Hopefully they get the potassium from Kazakhstan, all other countries have inferior potassium.
http://www.pepsiproductfacts.com/infobyproduct.php
Hopefully they get the potassium from Kazakhstan, all other countries have inferior potassium.
Last edited:
eits
Lifer
you need to learn how to read. i haven't been shown i was wrong, i was just out name-called in an argument. if that, somehow, decides arguments, i'll start being as immature as others until i win.
hfcs in food is 42/58. in drinks (mainly sodas), it's 55/45.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-fructose_corn_syrup
over time, it causes certain effects on heath.
the studies and arguments against the view that hfcs 55 taken regularly over time can cause effects on health are primarily done by groups with a heavy bias in favor of the corn industry. it doesn't is about as logical as believing studies done by christian groups who say that that since we haven't noticed any chimpanzees evolving into humans for thousands of years, the theory of evolution must be bullshit.
however, the fact of the matter is that there hasn't been enough long-term sound research on it... just correlative data and case studies and scientific speculation. on paper, it makes sense. now we just need it proven in a research environment to make it valid.
eits
Lifer
in short term studies, there are no significant differences. that's true. i never denied that.
here are a few studies that indicate health effects from hfcs:
http://www.nature.com/oby/journal/v13/n7/abs/oby2005136a.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15051594
http://ajpregu.physiology.org/cgi/content/abstract/295/5/R1370
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18703413
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2584858/?tool=pmcentrez
http://www.slu.edu/x15990.xml
Last edited:
I need to learn to read? What are you even talking about specifically in that statement? You mean, the studies that actually proved what everyone else was telling you while you kept claiming it supported your belief? You mean your links to Mercola based findings (calling people out for biased information and then actually citing Mercola just shows you're a fucking toolbag).
Since you need to be reminded constantly. No one is debating that fructose is worse. What we are calling bullshit on is your claim that HFCS is worse than sucrose. Even you have to admit it takes the proper quantities, and again, the amount that you'd have to consume for that to make a difference would already be putting your health in jeopardy, so citing it as evidence just shows what everyone already knows. If you eat unhealthy a lot your going to end up in worse health because of it. I'm not sure what long term studies you're expecting to tell you? That people that consume a ton of pop generally end up less healthy?
that is definately true. I drink a pop maybe twice a month by choice, sometimes its more because when I go to restaraunts the food I eat doesnt always go well with drinking water.
fruits arent that great for you either, hence its continual slide up the food pyramid due to its high sugar content.
First link:
Second link:
Correlation =/= causality. That's an old article anyways, and again, makes the distinction between fructose and glucose but doesn't mention that sucrose and HFCS are insignificantly close in their makeup of those two.
Third Link:
Nothing about HFCS vs sucrose. Just about fructose, which again, no one is arguing this point with you, just your anti-HFCS bullshit.
Fourth Link:
Is the same as the third link.
Fifth Link:
Same thing as third and fourth but actually goes in depth about the test.
Sixth Link:
In other words, they gave them more than what an average person eats comparably and found, surprise, that it had a negative impact on the health of the mice. I'm pretty sure anyone could tell you this. They also paired this with a high fat intake, so I'm not sure how it proves what you're trying to say. Also, again, no distinction that HFCS is worse than sucrose, just used HFCS as its the more common sweetener now, and so makes sense to use as its the main form of "sugar". If they used sucrose instead, their findings would likely be the same if not worse, since most HFCS in food is the 42 and not 55 mix, unless they deliberately used the 55 mix to skew their results.
Last edited:
eits
Lifer
lol namecalling
did you look at any of the studies i just posted? also, people were arguing that hfcs was no different that sugar and had no differing affects. well, the fact is that, yes, it does... in the short term (like many of the 24 hour studies shown), there's no real difference.
furthermore, yes, you're right, the more bad stuff you eat, the worse your health becomes. when hfcs has been shown to decrease satiety, it's a lot easier for people to eat more quantities of bad things.
http://www.vcstar.com/news/2009/sep/17/ucla-study-directly-links-soda-with-obesity/
everything in moderation. the only problem is that if you drink sodas, which most americans do, you're getting filled with more fructose than you would if you were drinking soda made with sugar. the more fructose you get, the higher the risk of heart disease via increased ldl/vldl levels, decreased satiety, insulin resistance.
sugar coke = 39g sugar
hfcs coke = 39g hfcs
39g sugar = 19.5g fructose
39g hfcs = 21.45g fructose
the average american drinks 50 gallons of regular soda per year.... so, that makes 533.3 cans of soda per year. (source)
based on the difference of the amount of fructose in an hfcs coke vs a sugar coke, that's 1040g of fructose EXTRA per year (for just the average american). over time, it makes a big difference.
now, think about the food thing. yes, sugar is used less in food than hfcs and, yes, hfcs has less fructose than sugar does. however, in order to achieve the same goal of sweetening the food to comparable levels with sugar, you'd need more hfcs to make up the taste difference. that means more grams of hfcs, which also means more fructose (fructose is the sweetest of the sugars). many foods use both, which doesn't make sense to me, but i guess it might to food chemists.
anyways, the point i'm trying to make, again, is that hfcs aids greatly in the fattening of america. diet and exercise combats it, but if you're getting, by default, more fructose in your diet than you need, then your body will demand a higher level of exercise to combat the effects its doing to your body. most americans just don't have that time anymore.
another thing that hfcs does is that it makes food and drinks much cheaper, which makes manufacturers make bigger packages of food or drink containers, which aids in overeating (psychologically, you want to eat the full plate in front of you... for example, eating food on a small plate and feeling full vs eating the same amount of food but on a bigger plate and not feeling full at all). increased serving sizes due to decreased costs is another reason why americans are overeating (and every food needs a drink, right? pop open another coke) and getting fatter.
i don't deny that on a small scale level, hfcs acts the exact same inside the body as sugar. what i'm saying is that based on how much hfcs the body takes over time and based on the role it plays in serving sizes on a microeconomic level and based on how fructose affects the body, it makes a difference... one that hasn't had enough major or long-term studies have yet to fully investigate. it's more than JUST hfcs.
the difference between sugar and hfcs, in my eyes, is small, but adds up over the months/years. too much of either are bad. it's just that one's slightly worse than the other and it's in everything nowadays and it's driving the cost of production of foods down to where serving sizes stay the same, but container sizes get bigger, thereby contributing to overeating.
eits
Lifer
um... hfcs 55 has a higher concentration of fructose... more fructose... fructose is bad... therefore hfcs 55 = bad, if fructose = bad. i don't get your failure to comprehend that.
i don't understand what you think you're proving by taking out quotes from the studies showing negative affects of fructose (thereby showing negative affects of hfcs).
lol namecalling
did you look at any of the studies i just posted? also, people were arguing that hfcs was no different that sugar and had no differing affects. well, the fact is that, yes, it does... in the short term (like many of the 24 hour studies shown), there's no real difference.
furthermore, yes, you're right, the more bad stuff you eat, the worse your health becomes. when hfcs has been shown to decrease satiety, it's a lot easier for people to eat more quantities of bad things.
http://www.vcstar.com/news/2009/sep/17/ucla-study-directly-links-soda-with-obesity/
everything in moderation. the only problem is that if you drink sodas, which most americans do, you're getting filled with more fructose than you would if you were drinking soda made with sugar. the more fructose you get, the higher the risk of heart disease via increased ldl/vldl levels, decreased satiety, insulin resistance.
sugar coke = 39g sugar
hfcs coke = 39g hfcs
39g sugar = 19.5g fructose
39g hfcs = 21.45g fructose
the average american drinks 50 gallons of regular soda per year.... so, that makes 533.3 cans of soda per year. (source)
based on the difference of the amount of fructose in an hfcs coke vs a sugar coke, that's 1040g of fructose EXTRA per year (for just the average american). over time, it makes a big difference.
now, think about the food thing. yes, sugar is used less in food than hfcs and, yes, hfcs has less fructose than sugar does. however, in order to achieve the same goal of sweetening the food to comparable levels with sugar, you'd need more hfcs to make up the taste difference. that means more grams of hfcs, which also means more fructose (fructose is the sweetest of the sugars). many foods use both, which doesn't make sense to me, but i guess it might to food chemists.
anyways, the point i'm trying to make, again, is that hfcs aids greatly in the fattening of america. diet and exercise combats it, but if you're getting, by default, more fructose in your diet than you need, then your body will demand a higher level of exercise to combat the effects its doing to your body. most americans just don't have that time anymore.
another thing that hfcs does is that it makes food and drinks much cheaper, which makes manufacturers make bigger packages of food or drink containers, which aids in overeating (psychologically, you want to eat the full plate in front of you... for example, eating food on a small plate and feeling full vs eating the same amount of food but on a bigger plate and not feeling full at all). increased serving sizes due to decreased costs is another reason why americans are overeating (and every food needs a drink, right? pop open another coke) and getting fatter.
i don't deny that on a small scale level, hfcs acts the exact same inside the body as sugar. what i'm saying is that based on how much hfcs the body takes over time and based on the role it plays in serving sizes on a microeconomic level and based on how fructose affects the body, it makes a difference... one that hasn't had enough major or long-term studies have yet to fully investigate. it's more than JUST hfcs.
the difference between sugar and hfcs, in my eyes, is small, but adds up over the months/years. too much of either are bad. it's just that one's slightly worse than the other and it's in everything nowadays and it's driving the cost of production of foods down to where serving sizes stay the same, but container sizes get bigger, thereby contributing to overeating.
First, that doesn't take into account the overall diet so you can't even prove that people are consuming more fructose compared to glucose than they used to.
The studies you keep citing do not make the distinction between HFCS and sucrose, just between fructose and glucose. Do I have to remind you again, that most HFCS is the 42 mix, and has less fructose than sucrose?
The pop stats include consumption of diet pops, so that has an impact on those figures, and makes you trying to infer anything from those, questionable at best.
You've already been proven wrong in those other threads about them using more HFCS to compensate for the weaker sweetness. They would just use the higher mix if they needed it. That's the entire point of its existence.
Uh, the problem is, most HFCS is not the 55 variety. Its the 42. You know the one that has less fructose?
Again, these studies do not show you're right. No one is disagreeing with the harmful effects of fructose. The problem is that is not what you are arguing. You keep trying to say HFCS is worse than sucrose when they are the same (in fact, again, the 42 mix of HFCS is better than sucrose) as far as these tests go.
Read what I posted and you'll get the answer why I did that. They don't make the distinction between HFCS and sucrose.
You keep trying to lay the blame for people getting fat on HFCS when there is nothing that shows this, and in light of the multitude of other factors that you keep ignoring just makes no sense.
Facts: consuming excessive amounts of "sugar" (by that I mean fructose/glucose mixtures which applies to both sucrose and HFCS) will lead to issues directly related to your bodies sugar processing. There is no evidence to what you are claiming, that HFCS is worse than sucrose.
Last edited:
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 + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter