What’s your take on corn syrup vs came sugar in Coke thingi?

[MrSquished]

In Italy at any rest stop or old little shop to grab a bottle of water they all had like the Ferrari of espresso machines ready to go at all times. No high fructose corn syrup was spotted though.

 

[MrSquished]

I don't think it's as simple as saying corn syrup or cane sugar is the same difference because they're both sweet like one article posted. I mean everything is different how people react to things. It's different chemical composition.

Processing makes a big difference too. My sister is not Celiac but she gets severe discomfort if she ingests any gluten. As much as she misses foods it's not worth the suffering.

When we were in Italy this year she wanted to try some gluten products but ultimately didn't want to risk it, because she's heard that people who are not celiac but who are very gluten sensitive have had gluten products in Europe with no problem. I'm guessing it's because in America we use chemical warfare on food way more than they do in Europe, which is why they ain't importing our beef.

Where we were in Europe there were pretty gluten-free friendly and always had options.

 

[uallas5]

I'm surprised nobody hasn't mentioned it, but you have always been able to buy US Coke made with sugar, problem is it's usually only found around Passover, i.e. "Kosher Coke." Bottles of this Coke are easily identified by their bright yellow caps. I don't drink much soda at all, but when I do, I prefer it made with sugar vs HFCS, so I was always on the lookout for it. I'm not Jewish and always just assumed HFCS wasn't Kosher, but apparently it's more complicated than that:

During Passover Jews are forbidden from eating oat, wheat, spelt, barley and rye. However in ancient times, other grains (kinyot) were often stored with these banned grains and many Jews will refrain from eating kinyot during Passover. Corn (and rice) is considered kinyot and is avoided during the holiday by some Jewish sects, such as Ashkenazi.

https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/1az6es/til_that_during_passover_cocacola_sells_coke_with

Corn syrup isn’t inherently non-kosher, but the common manufacturing processes often involve equipment and ingredients that can compromise its kosher status, making kosher certification essential.

Why Is Corn Syrup Not Kosher? - ShiftyChevre

Corn syrup isn't inherently non-kosher, but the common manufacturing processes often involve equipment and ingredients that can compromise its kosher status,

shiftychevre.com

Also, Pepsi has been selling a cane sugar version for a number of years now.

 

[ondma]

HFCS is starch hydrolyzed to fructose, a monosaccharide. Cane sugar is sucrose, which is a dimer (disaccharide) of glucose and fructose. So cane sugar (sucrose) is ultimately broken down to glucose and fructose. Fructose is absorbed more quickly by the body than sucrose, so cane sugar may have a slightly lower impact of raising blood sugar than fructose. However, the difference is minimal, as both are simple sugars, and both are considered unhealthy.

So IMO, this is a reasonable step to take, depending on how much it raises the price. However, it is a minimal step, and far from cancels out the harm done by Kennedy in other areas.

 

[Amused]

HFCS is starch hydrolyzed to fructose, a monosaccharide. Cane sugar is sucrose, which is a dimer (disaccharide) of glucose and fructose. So cane sugar (sucrose) is ultimately broken down to glucose and fructose. Fructose is absorbed more quickly by the body than sucrose, so cane sugar may have a slightly lower impact of raising blood sugar than fructose. However, the difference is minimal, as both are simple sugars, and both are considered unhealthy.

So IMO, this is a reasonable step to take, depending on how much it raises the price. However, it is a minimal step, and far from cancels out the harm done by Kennedy in other areas.

HFCS in drinks is 55% fructose and 45% glucose. HFCS used in foods is 43% fructose and 58% glucose.

Nearly identical to cane sugar. In foods, it has LESS fructose than cane sugar, in drinks slightly more.

"High fructose corn syrup" is called that because regular corn syrup is almost entirely glucose. NOT because it is ALL fructose.

So one can immediately take ANY study that bases it's finding on ingesting fructose levels higher than 55% and toss it out. Ironically, virtually every wellness site uses such studies of 100% fructose in foods to demonize HFCS and the mindless followers just blindly believe it.

If I have misunderstood you and you knew that HFCS had 45% or more glucose I apologize. Reading your post does not mention that and gives the impression you think HFCS is 100% fructose..

 

[ondma]

HFCS in drinks is 55% fructose and 45% glucose. HFCS used in foods is 43% fructose and 58% glucose.

Nearly identical to cane sugar. In foods, it has LESS fructose than cane sugar, in drinks slightly more.

"High fructose corn syrup" is called that because regular corn syrup is almost entirely glucose. NOT because it is ALL fructose.

So one can immediately take ANY study that bases it's finding on ingesting fructose levels higher than 55% and toss it out. Ironically, virtually every wellness site uses such studies of 100% fructose in foods to demonize HFCS and the mindless followers just blindly believe it.

If I have misunderstood you and you knew that HFCS had 45% or more glucose I apologize. Reading your post does not mention that and gives the impression you think HFCS is 100% fructose..

No, I did not know the HFCS has 45% glucose. Thanks for the information. Just to be clear, unlike HFCS, sucrose is glucose and fructose bound together chemically. It does not dissociate into fructose and glucose when it goes into solution. It has to be metabolized enzymatically (in the body) to produce free glucose and fructose.

 

[Amused]

No, I did not know the HFCS has 45% glucose. Thanks for the information. Just to be clear, unlike HFCS, sucrose is glucose and fructose bound together chemically. It does not dissociate into fructose and glucose when it goes into solution. It has to be metabolized enzymatically (in the body) to produce free glucose and fructose.

Yes, but those enzymes exist in our small intestines already. We don't just produce it on demand for sugar. So metabolically, HFCS and sugar are virtually identical.

Same as the enzymes that break the bond in lactose.

 

[dank69]

Yes, but those enzymes exist in our small intestines already. We don't just produce it on demand for sugar. So metabolically, HFCS and sugar are virtually identical.

Same as the enzymes that break the bond in lactose.

I think the point still stands that the speed at which the body can both convert the sucrose into glucose/fructose and then absorb them is slower than just absorbing the glucose and fructose from HFCS.

 

[TheGermanChemist]

HFCS is starch hydrolyzed to fructose, a monosaccharide. Cane sugar is sucrose, which is a dimer (disaccharide) of glucose and fructose. So cane sugar (sucrose) is ultimately broken down to glucose and fructose. Fructose is absorbed more quickly by the body than sucrose, so cane sugar may have a slightly lower impact of raising blood sugar than fructose. However, the difference is minimal, as both are simple sugars, and both are considered unhealthy.

So IMO, this is a reasonable step to take, depending on how much it raises the price. However, it is a minimal step, and far from cancels out the harm done by Kennedy in other areas.

Well no, none of this is correct. HFCS is a disaccaride consisting of either 55 or 42% fructose and the rest is glucose.

Fructose is absorbed a LOT slower than glucose. Glucose has a glycemic index of 100 while fructose has a glycemic index of 23. IOW glucose is absorbed more than four times faster than fructose.

That is NOT the problem with fructose, the problem is that it promotes a high insulin response without there being any sugar for insulin to deal with which means that your receptor sites get desensitized over time. We actually use this to make lab animals insulin resistant (diabetes type 2).

When it comes to HFCS vs regular sugar (whether it's from beets or sugar canes) it makes no difference health wise at all.

But the biggest tell that you are quite insane is that you thought Trump had a good idea... That's just... never going to happen.

 

[TheGermanChemist]

I think the point still stands that the speed at which the body can both convert the sucrose into glucose/fructose and then absorb them is slower than just absorbing the glucose and fructose from HFCS.

Which is just made up. Enzymatic or by acid is the same for both. In fact if you buy a cola the phosphoric acid already did that unless you bought it off of the factory floor. It would take about a week from adding it to the mix until it's done.

Amused is correct, this is all just misinformation on a product and as a European I don't quite get why?

 

[Amused]

I think the point still stands that the speed at which the body can both convert the sucrose into glucose/fructose and then absorb them is slower than just absorbing the glucose and fructose from HFCS.

Um, it happens within minutes of entering the small intestine. There is virtually no difference in metabolism between HFCS and sugar.

 

[Amused]

Which is just made up. Enzymatic or by acid is the same for both. In fact if you buy a cola the phosphoric acid already did that unless you bought it off of the factory floor. It would take about a week from adding it to the mix until it's done.

Amused is correct, this is all just misinformation on a product and as a European I don't quite get why?

Wellness influencers and snake oil salesmen. They're doing the same thing with seed oils right now. It's bonkers.

 

[TheGermanChemist]

Wellness influencers and snake oil salesmen. They're doing the same thing with seed oils right now. It's bonkers.

Well... That explains it. As a biochemist I spend more time online than I'd like just correcting that stuff.

 

[ondma]

Well no, none of this is correct. HFCS is a disaccaride consisting of either 55 or 42% fructose and the rest is glucose.

Fructose is absorbed a LOT slower than glucose. Glucose has a glycemic index of 100 while fructose has a glycemic index of 23. IOW glucose is absorbed more than four times faster than fructose.

That is NOT the problem with fructose, the problem is that it promotes a high insulin response without there being any sugar for insulin to deal with which means that your receptor sites get desensitized over time. We actually use this to make lab animals insulin resistant (diabetes type 2).

When it comes to HFCS vs regular sugar (whether it's from beets or sugar canes) it makes no difference health wise at all.

But the biggest tell that you are quite insane is that you thought Trump had a good idea... That's just... never going to happen.

Well, as the old saying goes, even a broken clock is right twice a day. (Referring to Trump, not you.)
Edit: You sound like you have a background in research, so I hate to dispute you, but the information I found says specifically that HFCS is a mixture of monosaccharides, namely glucose and fructose.

 

[Amused]

Well, as the old saying goes, even a broken clock is right twice a day. (Referring to Trump, not you.)
Edit: You sound like you have a background in research, so I hate to dispute you, but the information I found says specifically that HFCS is a mixture of monosaccharides, namely glucose and fructose.

You would be correct. However, the human body sees both the same as both are digested as monosaccharides. The enzyme used to break the bonds is not relevant when it comes to metabolism of the two sweeteners.

And no, taking HFCS and replacing it with equal amounts of sugar will not improve health. Both are equally bad for you in excess. So no, Trump is not right. Nor is the kook RFK Jr right. Both are parroting alt-med wellness misinformation.

 

[TheGermanChemist]

Well, as the old saying goes, even a broken clock is right twice a day. (Referring to Trump, not you.)
Edit: You sound like you have a background in research, so I hate to dispute you, but the information I found says specifically that HFCS is a mixture of monosaccharides, namely glucose and fructose.

Well yeah, 25 years as a doctor of biochemistry and molecular biology so I'd say I know some things on the subject.

Yeah, so sucrose (which is the stuff that you get from sugar canes and sugar beets) and HFCS are both disaccarides as in they break down into two monosaccarides, glucose and fructose.

They do so by enzymatic action or through acids acting on them to break them down. From a chemical viewpoint they are very similar and from a biological viewpoint they will have the same effect.

At the time of consumption in sodas both will already be broken down into the two monosaccarides the disaccarides consist of so it's really not difference.

And no, Trump is wrong 12 times out of the day (at least), the clock is not broken, it's as it was meant to be and it is full of stupid 12 times a day.

 

[TheGermanChemist]

You would be correct. However, the human body sees both the same as both are digested as monosaccharides. The enzyme used to break the bonds is not relevant when it comes to metabolism of the two sweeteners.

And no, taking HFCS and replacing it with equal amounts of sugar will not improve health. Both are equally bad for you in excess. So no, Trump is not right. Nor is the kook RFK Jr right. Both are parroting alt-med wellness misinformation.

No enzyme needed, unless we're talking about the enzymes in the saliva, it's the acids in the stomach that does that for the solid product and for the non-solid product it's already done.

And you are absolutely right about the problem. It's the excess of it that is the problem. Especially on it's own.

In the end, it's all about energy. If you ingest more energy than you expend it will be stored. That said there are ways to fuck up that process and overeating fructose is a surefire way to do so. Starches over sugar and protein over starches.

 

[Amused]

Well yeah, 25 years as a doctor of biochemistry and molecular biology so I'd say I know some things on the subject.

Yeah, so sucrose (which is the stuff that you get from sugar canes and sugar beets) and HFCS are both disaccarides as in they break down into two monosaccarides, glucose and fructose.

They do so by enzymatic action or through acids acting on them to break them down. From a chemical viewpoint they are very similar and from a biological viewpoint they will have the same effect.

At the time of consumption in sodas both will already be broken down into the two monosaccarides the disaccarides consist of so it's really not difference.

And no, Trump is wrong 12 times out of the day (at least), the clock is not broken, it's as it was meant to be and it is full of stupid 12 times a day.

Correction, HFCS is not bonded. The glucose and fructose are not bonded as they are in sucrose. However, that bond is for the most part irrelevant when it comes to health outcomes and effects on the body.

 

[Amused]

No enzyme needed, unless we're talking about the enzymes in the saliva, it's the acids in the stomach that does that for the solid product and for the non-solid product it's already done.

And you are absolutely right about the problem. It's the excess of it that is the problem. Especially on it's own.

In the end, it's all about energy. If you ingest more energy than you expend it will be stored. That said there are ways to fuck up that process and overeating fructose is a surefire way to do so. Starches over sugar and protein over starches.

Enzymes that break sugar bonds are called glycoside hydrolases or glycosidases. These enzymes specifically target and break the glycosidic bonds that link sugar molecules together. Examples include amylase, which breaks down starch, and sucrase, which breaks down sucrose.

Many people lack the enzyme lactase which makes them lactose intolerant. That's what it looks like when you do not have the specific enzyme to break the bond of a disaccharide.

 

[TheGermanChemist]

Correction, HFCS is not bonded. The glucose and fructose are not bonded as they are in sucrose. However, that bond is for the most part irrelevant when it comes to health outcomes and effects on the body.

You are absolutely correct, it's a linked version of the two sugars.

 

[TheGermanChemist]

Enzymes that break sugar bonds are called glycoside hydrolases or glycosidases. These enzymes specifically target and break the glycosidic bonds that link sugar molecules together. Examples include amylase, which breaks down starch, and sucrase, which breaks down sucrose.

Many people lack the enzyme lactase which makes them lactose intolerant. That's what it looks like when you do not have the specific enzyme to break the bond of a disaccharide.

Yes there are enzymes that break down sucrose through hydrolysis but acid hydrolysis will do the same thing. IOW, in the presence of an acid the bond between glucose and fructose in sucrose will break down. In the end you'll be consuming the same thing.

 

[ondma]

You are absolutely correct, it's a linked version of the two sugars.

What is a "linked" version of two molecules? Sucrose is made up of glucose and fructose linked by a covalent (shared electrons) bond, more specifically a glycosidic bond (as Amused already said). I have no idea what you are talking about for HFCS being a "linked version of the two sugars". Do you mean they are hydrogen bonded or something? All the information I can find says they are separate, unbound (to each other) molecules in HFCS.

Here is a link from the FDA concerning the question: https://www.fda.gov/food/food-additives-petitions/high-fructose-corn-syrup-questions-and-answers

 

[hal2kilo]

The real bottom line in all this is that drinking lots of soda pop, if not sugar free, is not healthy in the slightest. Sorry, people seem to want to blame somebody using HFCS instead of cane sugar for their health problems. Now, I get to hear a chorus from the sugar substitutes are even worse crowd. It never ends.

 

[Amused]

The real bottom line in all this is that drinking lots of soda pop, if not sugar free, is not healthy in the slightest. Sorry, people seem to want to blame somebody using HFCS instead of cane sugar for their health problems. Now, I get to hear a chorus from the sugar substitutes are even worse crowd. It never ends.

This is because health misinformation and snake oil is legal again and has been ever since the supplements act of the 90s.

All they have to do is display an FDA disclaimer and they can tell/sell you anything.

 

[brycejones]

This is because health misinformation and snake oil is legal again and has been ever since the supplements act of the 90s.

All they have to do is display an FDA disclaimer and they can tell/sell you anything.

This, for this act alone Orin Hatch should be burning in hell.