surfsatwerk
Lifer
- Mar 6, 2008
- 10,110
- 5
- 81
thecoolnessrune
Diamond Member
- Jun 8, 2005
- 9,673
- 583
- 126
Over the past few months I've had the sugar-filled Coke, Pepsi, Dr. Pepper, and Mountain Dew. All to me definitely have an improved taste over their HCFS counterparts. Heritage Dr. Pepper with a little rum last night was much smoother than usual.
Of all the tastes, I think Throwback Mountain Dew shows the largest improvement. The sharp taste I notice at first when drinking the soda is gone and the aftertaste apparent in most HFCS sodas is removed as well. The end result is a much smoother, sweet soda as compared to the HFCS Mountain Dew that was more like a biting sweetness.
It has the secondary effect of making me feel satisfied from just half to one soda. HFCS sodas don't usually give that "satisfied" feeling once I'm through with the can. I think I heard something about that being to do with the nature of HFCS itself as opposed to sugar. Not sure where I heard that though.
Of all the tastes, I think Throwback Mountain Dew shows the largest improvement. The sharp taste I notice at first when drinking the soda is gone and the aftertaste apparent in most HFCS sodas is removed as well. The end result is a much smoother, sweet soda as compared to the HFCS Mountain Dew that was more like a biting sweetness.
It has the secondary effect of making me feel satisfied from just half to one soda. HFCS sodas don't usually give that "satisfied" feeling once I'm through with the can. I think I heard something about that being to do with the nature of HFCS itself as opposed to sugar. Not sure where I heard that though.
I'm flattered that you would call me honey, but I'm married and my SO would not understand.
I disagree.
I tried a bottle of both Mt. Dew Throwback and Pepsi Throwback and noticed the difference immediately.
Didn't care for the Mt. Dew too much, but then again I think I've gotten tired of Mt. Dew over the years. The pepsi was surprisingly good.
<-- doesn't generally drink cola, but would pick Coke over Pepsi.
disappoint
Lifer
- Dec 7, 2009
- 10,132
- 382
- 126
What is ridiculous shit, and disappointing, is people like you spouting misinformation with such great certainty in your tone. Thank you for the fail. NEXT!
From Wikipedia:
Grounds exist for linking insulin resistance to a high-carbohydrate diet. An American study has shown that glucosamine (often prescribed for joint problems) may cause insulin resistance.[6] Insulin resistance has also been linked to PCOS (polycystic ovary syndrome) as either causing it or being caused by it. Further studies are in progress. Other studies have also linked to the increased amounts of fructose (e.g., in HFCS high fructose corn syrup, currently the least expensive nutritive sweetener available in industrial quantities); in humans, fructose causes changes in blood lipid profiles, among other things, mostly due to its effects on liver function. The high amounts of ordinary sucrose (i.e., table sugar) in the typical developed-world diet is also suspected of having some causative effect on the development of insulin resistance. Insulin resistance has certainly risen in step with the increase in sugar consumption and the substantial commercial usage of HFCS since its introduction to the food trades; the effect may also be due to other parallel diet changes however. Further research may distinguish between candidate causes.
eits
Lifer
sodas use hfcs 55, dude... hfcs 42 is used in foods (as is stated repeatedly throughout the various threads dealing with this argument).
the studies i cite are talking about fructose... you're right. i don't see what the hell your hang-up on this is. if fructose, in these studies, is shown to be bad in high amounts (relative to other sweeteners), then and logical person can make the obvious inference tha hfcs 55 is, therefore, bad for you in high amounts (relative to other sweeteners).
it's really not that hard a concept... you just refuse to accept it because, somehow, it's, i guess, cool to buy into biased studies by the corn refiners association funded studies showing people that short term studies show no difference between sucrose and hfcs and accept that as a suitable conclusion for a hypothetical non-conducted long-term study. it's like buying into studies by phillip-morris funded research showing that smoking isn't that bad for you.
HFCS vs Sugar taste and health debates aside, I like the Throwback varieties for the feel as much as anything. They seem to have a lighter, more water-like feel when you're drinking them, while retaining the normal amount of flavor. At least to me.
Gibsons
Lifer
- Aug 14, 2001
- 12,530
- 35
- 91
Intuitive logic is not the way to reach a conclusion. If we only relied on intuitive logic to reach conclusions, we'd be in sad, sad shape. Fortunately, we usually require data to for any hypothesis to reach the status of theory or conclusion.
eits
Lifer
i think you mis-bolded the proper information you were looking for, which is right here...
just because both sucrose and hfcs have been linked to insulin resistance doesn't mean hfcs doesn't cause insulin resistance at a faster rate or easier. just like the quote states, further research may distinguish between candidate causes.
it's like saying a dog turd smells just as bad as a duck turd because both duck and dog turds have been shown to stink. well, yeah, they both stink, but dog turds smell far worse than a duck turd.
eits
Lifer
fair enough, which is exactly why i don't understand why you people put so much stock into short-term studies on hfcs that show no difference between sugar and hfcs. your intuitive logic would state that since there are no differences between the two in the short term, there would be no differences in the long term.
any scientist can tell you that absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.
eits
Lifer
i'm done talking about negative effects of hfcs... sorry for hijacking the thread.
no one's mind will be changed about it on here until adequate unbiased research can be done (which will probably take a while, since the corn lobby is HUGE). until then, keep thinking what you think and i'll keep thinking what i think. we both have differing opinions.
no one's mind will be changed about it on here until adequate unbiased research can be done (which will probably take a while, since the corn lobby is HUGE). until then, keep thinking what you think and i'll keep thinking what i think. we both have differing opinions.
Gibsons
Lifer
- Aug 14, 2001
- 12,530
- 35
- 91
We're putting our stock in the data that exists, not in speculation. That's very easy to understand.
hint: qualify your statements. "I THINK a long term (define your length) study COULD show a difference between 55/45 and 50/50, even though there's no evidence indicating that it will." Don't present supposition and anti-corporate paranoia as science.
eits
Lifer
it's not paranoia nor is it anti-corporate. i don't believe there's some evil scheme to make americans dumb and fat by corporations to keep power or anything. i just think that it's simple business... supply and demand. supply a product for as cheap as you can make it (hfcs over sugar) so you can make as many as possible in order to sell as many as possible and make as much money as possible. the goal of any business in capitalism is to make as much money as possible.
all i'm suggesting is that hfcs, although good for capitalism, is bad for the body over time if taken regularly. i feel the research i've found is sound enough for me to agree with it and not remain a skeptic about it. some people don't feel that way and i'm cool with that.
it's not about an evil empire or paranoia or anything... it's about, i feel, people monitoring what they put into their bodies because there might be a negative effect. soda manufacturers are selling a product... if people can't monitor themselves and drink their products in moderation, that isn't their fault. it's about individual responsibility.
That's the issue though. What exactly constitutes "regularly"? Clearly the obesity epidemic in industrialized nations is due to over consumption, so people really are to blame for this. It doesn't matter whether the 10 cans of soda someone consumes everyday contains HFCS or sucrose. It's the fact that he's consuming 10 cans of soda! For those of us who actually exercise and don't consume excess calories, the whole nutritional aspect of HFCS is moot.
eits
Lifer
disappoint
Lifer
- Dec 7, 2009
- 10,132
- 382
- 126
What you fail to understand is that the body converts both fructose and sucrose into glucose before it even enters the bloodstream, which is why diabetics have a glucose meter and not a sucrose or fructose meter. Which means it doesn't matter which one you consume, they are both equally bad for you. But go on and believe the paranoid anti corporate message that HFCS is bad for you while ignoring the facts that all sugars are bad for you: equally bad. Because chemically they are the same when in the blood stream: glucose.
eits
Lifer
uh, no. i understand how the body works, thanks.
what you're failing to understand is that it's not as cut and dry as "fructose gets changed into glucose". it takes certain metabolites in the liver in order to pump fructose through gluconeogenisis. however, fructose is much more readily metabolized to fat in the liver than glucose is (because fructose increases glucose metabolism in the liver by mobilizing an enzyme called glucokinase... the liver takes up more glucose than it normally would, and the excess glucose is also synthesized into fat) and in the process can lead to nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (precursor to type 2 diabetes).
furthermore, fructose doesn't trigger an insulin response like sucrose does (insulin depresses appetite... without it, you will want to just keep eating... that's why it's easy to just keep eating fruit and not feel full soon afterwards)... therefore, if you're taking in more fructose and insulin isn't being triggered and your body metabolizes it into glucose, over time, you can develop diabetes because of insulin resistance.
http://www.medbio.info/Horn/Time...bolism March 2007.htm#Fructose_or_fruit_sugar.
this link might help YOU understand how things work in the body.
edit: again, i feel like i have to repeat myself to people like you who don't read everything i type, but i never said anything about hfcs being some evil thing or that i'm anti-corporate or paranoid. let me quote myself:
hfcs is 100% safe, in my opinion. i just think that the public should know what they're putting in they're bodies or feed their families before they wonder why so many people are fat and developing diabetes. are there other factors? absolutely! it's not JUST hfcs that's the culprit, but it is a major culprit, in my opinion. when you have drinks that don't decrease appetite, which cause overeating until people become full, which causes stomach distention, which causes the a delayed gastric-hypthalamic satiety response, which causes a decrease in desire for exercise, etc... you get the point.
Last edited:
Everyone that's arguing with you already knows that consuming excess amounts of sugar is bad for you. No one is debating this. I even pointed it out at least once but you keep ignoring it and harping on HFCS as though its some boogeyman. You're the one that keeps turning it into a HFCS vs sucrose debate. You need to understand that for the average American pop does not actually make up enough of their diet to do the things you claim that the extra fructose will do. They don't consume it in high enough amounts, and since people consume less fructose in the form of the 42 mix, they very likely are consuming less overall fructose than if sucrose was used. You keep ignoring that most of the HFCS in people's diet is better than sucrose, so your whole theory is screwed up. I'm not sure how you still can't comprehend this.
*facepalm*
What are you even arguing HFCS versus sucrose for? You really need to just say consuming excess "sugar". This has been pointed out to you a lot and you keep refusing and keep going on about HFCS being worse.
The extra fructose is valid in it being extra in their diet. The problem is, that does not mean HFCS is worse than sucrose, as consuming that extra in the form of sucrose will cause the same issues.
You ignore the change in lifestyles, people over-eating, and any number of other things that would cause the same things to people's health. Instead you focus on people drinking pop (which is where they would be getting this worse HFCS), while ignoring that they'd be doing just as much harm if they were consuming sucrose based soft drinks in those same quantities.
You are the only person refusing to accept anything here eits, and its why you keep getting slammed for pushing this idea. I don't know how many times it can be pointed out know one is disagreeing with your claim that fructose is worse. The problem is, you transfer that to HFCS being worse than fructose while continually ignoring that most HFCS in people's diets is better than sucrose. So, sure, drinking sucrose based soft drinks will marginally be healthier if you happen to be consuming excess amounts of them and doing nothing to compensate for it. By that same token, consuming sucrose for the majority of your diet will actually make things worse for than it would be now since it will increase the amount of fructose you intake.
You're like fleabag, only he has an excuse for being the way he is (he's young and naive). You actually work in the "medical field". I put it in quotation marks because you're a chiropractor, and that doesn't really qualify you to be making claims about people's diets. If it weren't for this fact, I would not be even bothering to argue with you, but I don't want anyone to be misled because you got influenced by junk science from Mercola.
No doubt you'll cite your new links, which again, does nothing to prove your point, and the fact that you use them to make deductions is downright wrong with your refusal to admit that most of the HFCS in people's diets means they are consuming less fructose comparably to sucrose.
eits
Lifer
/facepalm
you read nothing i posted...
and what is it with you and this hfcs 42 issue? hfcs 55 is the stuff in sodas, not 42. why do you keep bringing it up? 42 is the stuff in food products.
i find it a little ridiculous how you keep calling me names and attacking me, yet i've done nothing but post facts and science to support my point of view. is it because it differs from yours? is it because you don't understand how fructose affects people? i explained it all in my previous post AND posted a link explaining everything biochemically. still, you find it necessary to be disrespectful and ignorant.
Last edited:
You keep harping on biased research, yet you were the one that started with horribly biased studies and pontificating. What makes the studies you cite any less biased? Nothing. You know your argument is not sound (HFCS being worse than sucrose), so you try to harp on bias while applying your own bias all over your deductions.
Now do you understand why I told you not to bring this up in this thread and go post in one of the other ones? I guess you were hoping without people looking directly at all the times you kept being proven wrong, and all the junk like Mercoal that you were citing originally, and then finding new sources which again, do not prove you're right in any way (in fact you've had that blow up in your face over and over again after if validated what we said and not what you did).
You really don't understand? Your whole argument is that if people consume more fructose it is bad for you, and most of people's consumption of "sugar" comes in a form of HFCS that has less than sucrose.
You act like people are only consuming pop, when its not even 1/3 of the average person's diet. You're ignoring 2/3 of the argument to try to prove your point.
No one is arguing that consuming excessive amounts of pop will give you excessive amounts of fructose (as well as glucoce). The point is, you can't prove that is what is causing people's health problems and you're deducing something that makes no sense as your ignoring 95% of what is the cause.
Last edited:
DrPizza
Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
It's fun watching eits argue about fructose. I'll preface this little statement by pointing out as has been said, that NO ONE disagrees that too much sugar is bad, mmmkay?
Eits, have you ever wondered why 42% fructose? What reason do they have for choosing 42% as some standard number when adding it to food? Answer: because 42% fructose is considered to have the same sweetness as table sugar. It's a 1 to 1 replacement.
Now, about your ridiculous argument that 55% HFCS has more fructose than table sugar does (which is 50%.) That kind of a comparison doesn't work, unless we're comparing equal amounts of each substance. To help you along here, my car is about 90% metal and 10% lighter materials. My bike is about 95% metal and 5% lighter materials. Your reasoning is akin to saying my bike is heavier than my car, because it has a higher percentage of metal.
Your argument that the fructose added to soda is worse, because it's 55% fructose completely overlooks that fructose is 173% as sweet as sugar. i.e. you need to add MORE grams of sucrose than you would 55% fructose. Since 42% HFCS has identical sweetness, it doesn't take too much intelligence to realize that if you're using 55% HFCS, you save money by not needing to add as much as you would table sugar to maintain the same level of sweetness.
Hmmm, and since you agree with the rest of us that excess sugar is bad, it's quite reasonable to predict that the amount of fructose actually contained in a soda sweetened with HFCS is nearly identical (or even less than) the amount of fructose in a table sugar sweetend soda (sweetened to taste just as sweet.) AND, the total amount of sugar is actually MORE in the table sugar sweetened soda.
Face it, there's no conspiracy to push HFCS. The reason so many Americans are fatter can easily be attributed to the changing size of the portions that are consumed. Go to a convenience store - 32 ouncers? 48 ounce big gulp? 64 ounce serving cups. In the 1970's these sizes would have been considered ludicrous. Now, they're commonplace.
And, back on topic, I like the throwback pepsi; think I'll run out to the store in a minute and get some.
Eits, have you ever wondered why 42% fructose? What reason do they have for choosing 42% as some standard number when adding it to food? Answer: because 42% fructose is considered to have the same sweetness as table sugar. It's a 1 to 1 replacement.
Now, about your ridiculous argument that 55% HFCS has more fructose than table sugar does (which is 50%.) That kind of a comparison doesn't work, unless we're comparing equal amounts of each substance. To help you along here, my car is about 90% metal and 10% lighter materials. My bike is about 95% metal and 5% lighter materials. Your reasoning is akin to saying my bike is heavier than my car, because it has a higher percentage of metal.
Your argument that the fructose added to soda is worse, because it's 55% fructose completely overlooks that fructose is 173% as sweet as sugar. i.e. you need to add MORE grams of sucrose than you would 55% fructose. Since 42% HFCS has identical sweetness, it doesn't take too much intelligence to realize that if you're using 55% HFCS, you save money by not needing to add as much as you would table sugar to maintain the same level of sweetness.
Hmmm, and since you agree with the rest of us that excess sugar is bad, it's quite reasonable to predict that the amount of fructose actually contained in a soda sweetened with HFCS is nearly identical (or even less than) the amount of fructose in a table sugar sweetend soda (sweetened to taste just as sweet.) AND, the total amount of sugar is actually MORE in the table sugar sweetened soda.
Face it, there's no conspiracy to push HFCS. The reason so many Americans are fatter can easily be attributed to the changing size of the portions that are consumed. Go to a convenience store - 32 ouncers? 48 ounce big gulp? 64 ounce serving cups. In the 1970's these sizes would have been considered ludicrous. Now, they're commonplace.
And, back on topic, I like the throwback pepsi; think I'll run out to the store in a minute and get some.
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