Why doesn't Coke switch from high fructose corn syrup to cane sugar?

[Amused]

Originally posted by: JellyBaby
Regarding the obese 6 month old epidemic. I believe the UCSF presentation showed a label from some baby formula which revealed it had corn syrup solids and sugar added directly and in large proportions.

Why add sugar to baby formula?

Could it be that introducing sugar early on helps get kids hooked on sweets sooner? IIRC he also mentions new studies that indicate mothers who take in too much sugar during pregnancy pass that on to their unborn kids and this may be compounding the problem. It was in the video.

Mothers milk is basically lactose sugars (essentially glucose), protiens and fats. What did you think it was? Corn syrup is not HFCS. They are not the same. Your typical corn syrup is mostly GLUCOSE, not fructose.

And it has nothing to do with mothers passing on sugars, but fat setpoints and hunger/fullness triggers. Read the latest study about the direct connection between a mother's weight DURING pregnancy, and the child's weight throughout it's life.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: SociallyChallenged

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: JellyBaby
Amused, watch the podcast. I'm curious to see if you feel differently after watching it.

I agree, obesity is really a bigger issue (so to speak). Sugar intake in general is of much greater concern but there are specific dangers with fructose. I've come across similar warnings in several books as well (the latest from a Prevention Magazine book on sugar) that list concerns with HFCS. This info. doesn't appear to be alarmist. I'm seeing this information come from credible sources and based in fact.

Fact: Sugar is 50% fructose. HFCS in soda is 55% fructose, in food, 42% fructose. Sugar is just as bad in excess as HFCS.

Fact: The podcast is meaningless without a valid study to support it. And not one valid study has shown HFCS to cause more negative health effects than the same calories consumed of sugar. Period. It really is that simple.

Your info is NOT based on fact and IS alarmism. They are baseless fear mongering without a single valid study to support their claims.

Yes, I know a lot of seemingly respectable folks and organizations have jumped on the "HFCS is worse than sugar" bandwagon. But when you look at the actual science, you'll find not one single study to support these fears. Not a single one. Not even one valid study that comes close to suggesting it.

The lecture really just emphasizes that both sugar and HFCS are bad. It essentially equates them so you would agree with it. It does have valid research, etc.

However, just because research hasn't been done doesn't mean that the tendency and the mechanisms are not true. I feel that the research I mention at my school will help alleviate that better with a full spectrum of drinks to which, I except, will have a full spectrum of response based on the increasing fructose content of the drinks. Until then, we can debate about mechanisms that have been proven and speculate about the actual effect in the human body.

Well there you go. Sugar and HFCS are equally bad for you. That's been my piont all along: The stupidity of singling out HFCS as the cause of the obesity epidemic.

I may add that people have been trying to prove for over 30 years that HFCS is worse than sugar. They've failed because they are essentially the same and affect the body the same.

Sugar/HFCS is, and always should be an occational treat, and tool for instant energy. Nothing more. I've said that all along.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: SociallyChallenged

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: JellyBaby
Actually, you really do want to closely watch your sugar intake for a wide variety of reasons. One can of sugary soda pop every day = ~15 pounds over a year.

I recently caught a podcast that explains this and specifically the dangers of high fructose corn syrup. One thing that's mentioned in this video is an epidemic of obesity 6 month year olds, so obesity is not always a simple diet & exercise function. How can it be if babies are getting fat so fast?

It also talks about Coke and what they've done over the years with soda. There are also specific recommendations at the end (as well as the answer to the 6 month baby obesity epidemic which truly shocked me to the core...they show you the label of what's in some baby formula and it blew me away).

The Dr. also explains why you're not going to hear any warning from the FDA and USDA over hfcs.

It's long but very informative and very well worth the view: http://www.uctv.tv/search-details.aspx?showID=16717 . This is from the UCSF Medical Center (one of the nation's top 10 hospitals).

:::sigh:::

Most infants aren't getting HFCS in their diets. Yet are still increasingly overweight and growing up to be overweight later in life.

Why? This was explained by the recent "fat moms have fat kids" study that showed a mothers weight DURING pregnancy had a direct effect on their child's weight throughout it's life. That, combined with the adoption study shows that it is both GENETIC AND set in the womb how fat a child will be in a given environment. And this epidemic is hitting countires that do NOT use HFCS just as hard as it's hitting the US. Europe, and especially the UK is facing it's own obesity epidemic and none of them have sugar tariffs forcing widespread use of HFCS. So the HFCS = obesity crap is just that, crap. You'd gain just as much weight if you ate the same calories of sugar.

The FDA doesn't warn anyone about HFCS because there is absolutely ZERO evidence it is any worse for you than sugar. None. Not a single study shows it in lab animals, or humans. BOTH sugar and HFCS cause weight gain equally. The FDA and many other agencies DO warn about excess consuption of sugars including HFCS. And for good reason.

But to single out HFCS and claim that if all of it were replaced with sugar, the obesity epidemic would lessen, or even change at all is completely absurd.

What you say is true, Amused. However, if you watch that lecture, he points out the ingredients to a baby formula, which is based in corn syrup and another sugar or refined corn product. Babies are getting some crap too. We just keep tending toward actions that make our species fatter and fatter. It's terrible.

Again, corn syrup is NOT HFCS. They are not the same. Corn syrup is mostly, or entirely GLUCOSE, not fructose. And is used to simulate the lactose in mothers milk which is essentially GLUCOSE.

 

[Amused]

Read here on what corn syrup is if you do not believe me.

Oops, forgot the link:

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

HFCS was created as a sweetener because corn syrup, being mostly glucose, did not TASTE as sweet as sugar. So fructose is added using enzimes to convert glucose into fructose, and the name changed to HFCS.

Corn syrup is used when high sweetness is not desired, yet the sugars are essential. Glucose is a healthy sugar, and is included in formula because mothers milk has sugars as it's carbohydrates. It could hardly have startches, now could it?

Babies NEED glucose along with fats and protiens to survive. To NOT put corn syrup (GLUCOSE) in formula would leave babies malnurished.

It's sad that educated people are so ignorant as to equate plain corn syrup (Almost entirely HEALTHY glucocse) with HFCS. Not only that, but to spread fear about it posing as people of authority. What a joke.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: JellyBaby
One thing that's alarming is just how widespread the use of high fructose corn syrup is in our foods. After watching this podcast I remember going through the kitchen and finding hfcs in far, far more products than I expected from breakfast bars to cereal to bread, yogurt, stuffing mix, ketchup on and on including whole grain wheat snack crackers. I

HFCS is cheap and it's super-sweet, that's why it's in so many foods. Unfortunately, it's tedious examining every label when you shop and often the organic section is the only place you'll find an absence of it in some things.

It's really a problem with taking in too much fructose over a long stretch of time. IIRC long ago we only took in about 15g/day via regular fruits and veggies, not enough for any negative impact. Today, it's like 70g/day (again IIRC). That video explains the biochemistry behind how your body metabolizes fructose. Pretty shocking stuff.

I changed my diet as a result (and to reduce sugar in general, a HUGE plus for health).

Okay, missed this one but gotta address it since it's part of the whole paranoia thing.

SUGAR was in all those foods before HFCS. Nearly all breads, even sourdough, have always had some sugar in them. Yogurt without some kind of sweetener is simply awful, bitter shit. And ketchup without sugar and vinegar is, well, tomato paste. These foods, since they first were made, have ALWAYS been sweetened. This is nothing new. There is not HFCS in anything sugar wasn't in before it. It's not some grand conspiracy to make you fat.

And for the coup de gras? Wait for it... Sugar is 50% fructose, as we all know so well by now. Right??? Yet the HFCS used in foods is "HFCS 42" which means it's 42% fructose/58% glucose. Yep, that's right, LESS fructose than sugar.

This is nothing but more bullshit paranoia. Someone told you a common sweetener is a boogieman, and now you see it everywhere and think it was never there before. Sorry, all those things have always had sugar in them and were even less healthy when they did.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: Newbian

Originally posted by: venkman
because you touch yourself at night.

This is also true.

you use a cattle prod and tweezers???

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: Newbian

Originally posted by: venkman
because you touch yourself at night.

This is also true.

you use a cattle prod and tweezers???

Only on special occasions.

 

[CountZero]

Originally posted by: Newbian
Because so far of all the sugar pop I have tried I prefer the syrup version like most others it seems in many polls.

I have never met, seen online or read an article that ever once pointed to someone that preferred HFCS to sugar. Some folks are ambivalent or notice no difference but never seen mention of someone preferring HFCS. Given how many people pay a premium for sugar vs HFCS I'd be interested to see this poll.

As has been mentioned HFCS is used because it is cheap. It is cheap because US regulation of sugar is ridiculously complex but boils down to keep out foreign sugar as much as possible. Sugar is making a mild comeback because corn is increasing in price.

As an aside is there any other industry we coddle and protect from foreign interests as much as sugar? It seems like a leftover ancestor of a time when the US was very concerned with protecting its local businesses as opposed to the current outsourcing is keen attitude.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: CountZero

Originally posted by: Newbian
Because so far of all the sugar pop I have tried I prefer the syrup version like most others it seems in many polls.

I have never met, seen online or read an article that ever once pointed to someone that preferred HFCS to sugar. Some folks are ambivalent or notice no difference but never seen mention of someone preferring HFCS. Given how many people pay a premium for sugar vs HFCS I'd be interested to see this poll.

As has been mentioned HFCS is used because it is cheap. It is cheap because US regulation of sugar is ridiculously complex but boils down to keep out foreign sugar as much as possible. Sugar is making a mild comeback because corn is increasing in price.

As an aside is there any other industry we coddle and protect from foreign interests as much as sugar? It seems like a leftover ancestor of a time when the US was very concerned with protecting its local businesses as opposed to the current outsourcing is keen attitude.

The protectionist tariffs passed on sugar were done to keep sugar prices high enough so that US growers could stay in business. It was considered a national security issue to have an essential production capability such as sugar disappear completely.

We've done somewhat the same with autos (the silly bailouts) and motorcycles (a tariff to protect Harley). The thinking is that at least a MINIMAL production capability of essintial material must be maintained in case of war and we are cut off from offshore suppliers.

 

[DrPizza]

Is it too soon to declare that Amused wins this argument?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: DrPizza
Is it too soon to declare that Amused wins this argument?

:laugh:

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: DrPizza
Is it too soon to declare that Amused wins this argument?

people are tired of being insulted and namecalled and talking to a brick wall who completely disregards science and completely bases his world on facts that suit his beliefs best (disregarding those that don't). he doesn't understand the concept that research and how it isn't something with which to base your entire view of what's true and what isn't. so, it's really just worthless to try and have an adult discussion with someone like him. if you call that winning, then i guess he wins.

for amused.

 

[JellyBaby]

SociallyChallenged,

I changed what I eat also due to that lecture and from follow-up research on my part. I tried to nix HFCS wherever possible and reasonable and now watch sugar intake much more closely. As far as feeling better, I do too but I also increased my daily exercise at the same time I changed the diet so I attribute the boost to both efforts.

Amused,

You didn't bother to watch the video did you? The podcast meaningless? Are you serious? OF COURSE it's based on research. Do you honestly think a doctor of Lustig's reputation would pull this stuff out from a dark place based on some other agenda? Nothing personal, but frankly, I'd believe him over you. Here's University of California San Francisco profile. He's credible as is the podcast. It's eye-opening stuff.

These studies and research are very new with some of the more detailed studies on fructose coming out in 2007 and more are on the way. The UCSF team already launched a more in-depth study on HFCS specifically because there certainly is enough concern to warrant further discovery.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: DrPizza
Is it too soon to declare that Amused wins this argument?

people are tired of being insulted and namecalled and talking to a brick wall who completely disregards science and completely bases his world on facts that suit his beliefs best (disregarding those that don't). he doesn't understand the concept that research and how it isn't something with which to base your entire view of what's true and what isn't. so, it's really just worthless to try and have an adult discussion with someone like him. if you call that winning, then i guess he wins.

for amused.

That's rich. You posted IRRELEVANT and invalid article, HALF of them from that quack, Mercola. And you have the unmitigated gall to say *I* disregard science?

Sorry, buddy, but you fail, yet again. You have not posted a single valid study showing HFCS to be worse than sugar. Not a single one.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: JellyBaby
SociallyChallenged,

I changed what I eat also due to that lecture and from follow-up research on my part. I tried to nix HFCS wherever possible and reasonable and now watch sugar intake much more closely. As far as feeling better, I do too but I also increased my daily exercise at the same time I changed the diet so I attribute the boost to both efforts.

Amused,

You didn't bother to watch the video did you? The podcast meaningless? Are you serious? OF COURSE it's based on research. Do you honestly think a doctor of Lustig's reputation would pull this stuff out from a dark place based on some other agenda? Nothing personal, but frankly, I'd believe him over you. Here's University of California San Francisco profile. He's credible as is the podcast. It's eye-opening stuff.

These studies and research are very new with some of the more detailed studies on fructose coming out in 2007 and more are on the way. The UCSF team already launched a more in-depth study on HFCS specifically because there certainly is enough concern to warrant further discovery.

If he is saying the corn syrup in forumla is bad for babies, he's a fool. I posted proof for you that showed corn syrup is typically almost entirely glucose with very little to no fructose in it. Mothers milk HAS GLUCOSE. Sugars are essential to the baby's nutrition.

I also note you didn't address a single other point I made, instead choosing to rest your entire argument on the claims of another. Meanwhile, I posted proof.

Why not try thinking and studying the points for yourself? Find out what products with HFCS 42 in it today did NOT have sugar in it before HFCS came about?

OOPS!!! None. That's right.

Why not address the fact that all those foods containing HFCS that freak you out (which would have sugar, otherwise) actually have LESS fructose (HFCS used in foods is 42% fructose) than they would were sugar used?

OOPS! That's right. You can't address the facts, can you. You rather believe the guru who is selling something rather than the facts laid before you.

Why do seemingly respectable people make claims such as this guy you're allowing to make your argument? Because fear brings in research dollars, and sells books, and sells other things as well. The only stronger motivator than fear for sales is sex.

Congrats. You've been duped. The ONLY message you should take away from this is to limit ALL sugar intake, not single out HFCS and choose sugar over it thinking you'll be healthier. Anyone who thinks they're healthier taking in the same calories of sugar over HFCS is a fool.

Oh, and anyone who can't understand that corn syrup as used in foods and baby formula (NOT HFCS just corn syrup) is almost entirely glucose, and that babies NEED glucose to live is a complete fucking idiot.

ANNNND finally... on to addressing your guru and his quackery personally:

http://www.bio-medicine.org/me...of-obesity-21-13398-1/

This doctors beliefs are NOT based on valid science, but his own unsupported theories. His conclusions are doubted by a large portion of the medical community.

He is yet another doctor telling people it's not their fault they are fat and everyone should fear our foods. THAT SELLS!!!

And this quote tells me he's a fucking fool: "While fructose tastes like sugar and is used as a sugar, its biochemical structure is different from sugar, which prevents it from being metabolized or broken down as a sugar,"

Um, doctor, sugar is 50% FRUCTOSE!!! HFCS in drinks is 55% fructose and in foods is 42% fructose!!! They are essentially the same!!!

Sorry, buddy, but your guru is a quack with fear to sell to other fools. A quack is a quack, even if they have an MD behind their name. And this guy is a quack who's too fucking stupid to understand that sugar is 50% fructose.

So let;s count down the list of points that I've proven your guru wrong:

1. Corn syrup in formula: Corn syrup is GLUCOSE. Not fructose, and is a healthy sugar exactly like the lactose found in mother's milk.

2. HFCS is found in foods that never were sweetened before. Um, this one was a joke. Breads have ALWAYS had sugar in them. Same with yogurt and other snacks. Sugar is essential to most baked goods.

3. And finally, his stupid damn quote that compares fructose to sugar as if sugar were not 50% frustose just as HFCS is.

Sorry, but your guy is nuttier than a HFCS sweetened fruitcake and a bigger dumbass than Kanye West at an awards show.

 

[SagaLore]

People will still buy the HFCS, which is cheaper for Coke.

 

[JellyBaby]

Amused, limiting sugar intake is indeed the message. Nah, I've not been duped. He's not a "guru", he's an M.D. and I feel he's quite credible. You'll be happy to know the UCSF research team is now undergoing one or more studies to specifically to determine if HFCS poses special problems to our health. To me it's clear there's enough concern to easily warrant more focused studies.

btw, you really are overly emotional and sensational with your attack-the-poster approach to discussion. Calm down, there's no need to get all riled up (though I'm fully aware this makes the forums great entertainment to you).

 

[JellyBaby]

Originally posted by: SagaLore
People will still buy the HFCS, which is cheaper for Coke.

Yes it's dirt-cheap and there are more sweetener options on the way, many even sweeter than HFCS.

The irony is with the added sweet you can use less of it for the same effect, right? Yet somehow the recipes for many drinks keep adding more and more sugar overall.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: JellyBaby
Amused, limiting sugar intake is indeed the message. Nah, I've not been duped. He's not a "guru", he's an M.D. and I feel he's quite credible. You'll be happy to know the UCSF research team is now undergoing one or more studies to specifically to determine if HFCS poses special problems to our health. To me it's clear there's enough concern to easily warrant more focused studies.

btw, you really are overly emotional and sensational with your attack-the-poster approach to discussion. Calm down, there's no need to get all riled up (though I'm fully aware this makes the forums great entertainment to you).

The guy has made A LOT of completely wrong statements that fly in the face of valid scientific studies and basic facts.

I pointed them out and proved him wrong. If you have no problem with him then you have no problem with people who spew complete falsehoods.

I have a very low tolerance for bullshit. And your guy is full of a lot of it. I've proved it beyond any doubt. Think of it this way: How many mothers out there are scared to death of perfectly safe and nutritious baby formula because of this quack who can't tell the very basic and simple difference between HFCS (half fructose/glucose) and corn syrup (almost entirely glucose)? What kind of doctor is he if he can't understand that babies NEED glucose to live and mother's milk is full of lactose (glucose).

Your guy is right up there with Mercola and Miss Information from South Park. He's just one step away from telling you all your ailments are due to mysterious unnamed "toxins" and the science behind his claims is just as non-existent as theirs.

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: DrPizza
Is it too soon to declare that Amused wins this argument?

people are tired of being insulted and namecalled and talking to a brick wall who completely disregards science and completely bases his world on facts that suit his beliefs best (disregarding those that don't). he doesn't understand the concept that research and how it isn't something with which to base your entire view of what's true and what isn't. so, it's really just worthless to try and have an adult discussion with someone like him. if you call that winning, then i guess he wins.

for amused.

Reading comprehension:
His point, this entire thread, has been that HFCS's bad effects on a human are *IDENTICAL* to the bad effects of sugar. There is no difference. Some of you can't get that through your thick skulls. You seem to think there's a separate argument going on here - that HFCS is bad for you. Amused is NOT arguing that point - he's agreeing with that point.

Not one person has presented one shred of evidence that disputes that fact. Not you, not anyone. And, more than one idiot has presented evidence that supports the proposition that HFCS and sugar have the same effects, thinking that they were proving that HFCS was worse.

I'm faced with one of two possibilities here - either YOU don't understand research, or YOU have some reading comprehension problems.

Here, let me summarize this thread for you.

"Gee, why is HFCS in so much, instead of sugar?"
Amused: "sugar tariffs" <--- true, and no one has disputed this.

Amused: Claim: HFCS is no better or worse for you than Sugar. They're nearly identical in composition

Eits:

hfcs is cheaper to use than cane sugar... and even though hfcs is bad for you and is making america fatter, coke only care's about the almighty dollar.

Anyone with any reading comprehension is going to see right there that YOU implied, quite strongly, that hfcs is worse for you than sugar.

Then YOU came along and posted 9 links, claiming they proved that HFCS was worse. They did no such thing. First link, admitted at the bottom that it wasn't peer reviewed. And, all it concluded is that it "could" be a problem. Levels of mercury were "detectable." Science lesson for you: just because something is detectable, doesn't necessarily mean that level poses any danger at all.

2nd article: who funds studies. Note: One of the fucking studies was from the SUGAR industry. Yoohooo! Knock, knock, anyone awake? It's in the sugar industry's better interests to find that HFCS *IS* worse than sugar. Guess what. They didn't succeed.

3rd article: no comparison of HFCS and sugar whatsoever. Absolutely irrelevant to the discussion. Well, it is relevant in one way: showing that you either didn't read the articles yourself, else you still haven't processed the idea that the argument is that HFCS and sugar are equal. Nope, too late for the latter; from the quote I have above.

From your 4th article:

These effects only occurred in the study participants who drank fructose -- not glucose.
Consumption of beverages containing fructose rose 135 percent between 1977 and 2001. Food and beverage manufacturers began switching their sweeteners from sucrose (table sugar) to corn syrup in the 1970s

Who the fuck is this quack? He is either misinformed, lacks any research ability that all of us agree is valuable, else is intentionally lying because he has some sort of agenda (ohhhh, organic consumer's association. Hmmmm) Even you seem to have reluctantly admitted that HFCS isn't 100% fructose, and that the percent fructose is nearly the same as the percent fructose in table sugar. (slightly higher percent in soda, slightly lower percent in other foods.)

From your 5th article: absolutely no comparison to sugar. Just about storage of HFCS & high temperatures.

Seriously, wtf?? No wonder Amused was so short with you. It's like you're taking the shotgun approach - fire enough shots and maybe one of the pellets will hit. Did you even read these fucking articles? Or do you lack reading comprehension or analytical ability??

Your 6th article:

Dr. Robert H. Lustig, a pediatric endocrinologist at the University of California, San Francisco Children's Hospital, said: "The argument about which is better for you, sucrose or HFCS, is garbage. Both are equally bad for your health."

Both sugar and high-fructose corn syrup are made from glucose and fructose. The level of fructose is about 5 percent higher in the corn sweetener.

Again, did you even read these articles before you took the shotgun approach of posting 9 links that you thought supported your side of the argument?! If you think "BOTH ARE EQUALLY BAD FOR YOUR HEALTH" means "HFCS is worse for you" then you really have some reading comprehension problems there. Incidentally, that now makes two different articles in the same publication that contradict each other (contradiction of composition of HFCS according to the 4th article you posted.) You're doing a really good job of picking your sources.

Your 7th article:
Again, irrelevant. It's making no comparison. We know that lots of HFCS is bad for you, mmmkay?

8th article - it's 1am here, it's a long article - seems to focus on HFCS, not make a comparison between HFCS and sugar. Again, we know that HFCS causes problems like those in that article.

9th article: Back to Dr. Douchebag Mercola. This guy has ZERO credibility after claiming that HFCS is Fructose and table sugar is Sucrose in the 4th article.





Amused: Your articles suck. I just recapped them in more depth. Yep, I've gotta agree. The articles you linked to sucked or were irrelevant to this discussion.


TridentTboy: there's HFCS in bread and ketchup

Amused: call a baker before you look like a dumbass. There's sugar in bread. Ketchup without sugar & vinegar is called tomato paste.

YOU: HFCS is bad! HFCS is bad! HFCS is bad! You're a dummy Amused ("janitor school") if you can't figure it out.

Amused: you're an idiot. I never said HFCS isn't bad, the argument is that sugar and HFCS are equally bad. And if people eat more calories and sit around more, ummm, that's going to make them fatter. Durrrrrrrr.

Jeff7: Mercola... cell phone radiation into childrens brains... $14.97 ferrite beads to cut down on the radiation. Eits, if you have ANY intelligence and ability to comprehend very simple physics (high school level) and a myriad of studies, you'd know that the cell phone radiation fearmongering is ABSOLUTE BULLSHIT. It's unfortunate that it keeps resurfacing over and over again. Also, yes, if Mercola is claiming this, then he really is a quack.

Eits: whaaaaaaa! You're calling me names. Mercola isn't fraudulent or a quack.
Sorry, Eits, if Mercola is trying to make money by saving people from cellphone radiation, he *IS* a fraudulent quack. Period. Ask any physics professor. The only people who say "the issue isn't completely settled yet" are the assholes still trying to make a quick buck from fear mongering. I'm sorry that you're one of the suckers who believes them.

Eits: posts 2 more articles

Good GAWD you fail AGAIN!!!
Your second link is a study on FRUCTOSE!!! What is cane/beat sugar? 50% FRUCTOSE!!! Just like HFCS. ANY study on the harmful effects of FRUCTOSE equally damns cane/beat sugar and HFCS.
The study even points out that SUCROSE (sugar) is equally part of the problem.
Wow...
Your first study points out an obvious fact. A diet high in sugar is bad for you. The study does not say the effects are unique to HFCS and not identical with sugar. In fact, it makes no comparison to sugar.
It's a no-fucking-brainer that a when your diet is 20% sugar, you're gonna have problems.
I don't have to prove a fucking thing. Again, you fail...

Sorry Eits, at this point, I've gotta agree with Amused. He really hasn't attacked you so much as attacked your sources, at least at first, and argued that sugar is equally bad as HFCS. Now, you're posting more links to the exact same nonsense. I don't blame Amused one bit for getting frustrated with trying to argue with you at this point. Seriously... can you not comprehend what you're linking to? You're saying one thing, then linking to proof of the opposite.

Dullard: Hey guys, HFCS is worse than pure glucose

Bunch of people: That's not what the thread is about Dullard!

Dullard: Hey guys, HFCS is worse than pure glucose. That's the real issue. I don't know why you're arguing that HFCS is worse than Sucrose. It's not.

Dullard: You guys are having the wrong debate.

Amused: Shut up Dullard. We all know that glucose is better for you than either table sugar or HFCS. Not that it isn't also bad in excees. Just not quite as bad.

Dullard: Ohh, I thought you were saying fructose was good.

Amused:

Um, sorry but you fail again. I have never addressed a thread on fructose alone. And in every debate on HFCS, I say both sugar and HFCS are EQUALLY bad for you in excess. It is OTHERS who post studies on fructose alone, and I ALWAYS point out that HFCS and sugar are both half glucose/fructose. I NEVER say frustose is not bad for you, nor imply it. Quite the contrary. In every debate I say I avoid BOTH HFCS and sugar daily and use both only as a tool or for an occational treat.

KingGheedora: glucose....

KingGheedora: Ohhhhh, this thread is about sugar vs HFCS

SociallyChallenged: "I think that..."

Amused: WRONG, here are the facts, here's the data from a govt site.

SociallyChallenged: "Okay, you called me on that one. But, I'm going to make up more bullshit off the top of my head."

Amused: WRONG

SociallyChallenged: "Oh yeah, well I was involved in a study that proved it! Well, until I had to do something else."

Amused: Uhhh, that's Glucose, and it doesn't compare HFCS to table sugar. Durrrrrr
But I agree with some of your other irrelevant points about obesity.

JellyBaby: Oh noooooes! There's glucose in baby formula
Socially Challenged: Yeah, there is, so there Amused! Eat our shorts!

Amused: Jelly, you dipshit, glucose is necessary. To be without it would be malnourished.

Socially Challenged: Oh yeah, well this study says that sugar and HFCS are bad for you.


Eits: Amused called me names. He disregarded my facts.

Amused: No I didn't. You never presented any facts that show that HFCS is worse than sugar. Mercola is a quack. Here are a list of reasons supporting my claim that he's a quack.

JellyBaby: Mercola isn't a quack

Amused: here's more reasons why he's a quack.

 

[darkswordsman17]

Haha, Dr Pizza FTW.

How the fuck is this thread still going?

 

[Adul]

Originally posted by: venkman
much more expensive to use sugar due to US regulations on sugar prices. That's why you get the stuff from Mexico

i am glad costco carries this stuff to

 

[Amused]

:laugh:

DrPizza rocks! That shit had me rolling.

This thread is now about...

Dental Plan...

 

[QueBert]

Originally posted by: Modelworks
With the proposed taxes on soda drinks at 1 cent / ounce , that increases a 20oz coke by 20 cents, no way will coke do anything that increases cost more. It is already $1.49 here, that would be $1.69 + cost of sugar vs corn syrup it could reach $1.89 for a 20oz. Doubt they would do it.

I bought a 500ml Mexican Coke today for $1.69, the American Coke at the same store was $1.59. The Mexican Coke's imported from Mexico so I would gather that would account for the dime difference in price. I know the US one is 20oz's but importing it from Mexico has to cost more than a local bottler. I'm not convinced it would cost them anything more to make it with real sugar.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Amused
:laugh:

DrPizza rocks! That shit had me rolling.

This thread is now about...

Dental Plan...

Lisa needs braces and Dr. Pizza wins forums.anandtech.com.