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

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
both the 9/11 conspiracy theorists and the anti-HFCS nutters are committing the same sorts of factual errors and biased reasoning. Both issues are symptomatic of the same lack of logical ability....we actually do have data which refute the claims that HFCS is somehow unhealthy. There is a distinct difference between having insufficient evidence with which to judge (as was once the case with cigarettes) and having enough evidence but refusing to believe it (as is the case with the HFCS nutters).

ZV

Care to comment on any of the multiple scientific studies that I posted? Or are you going to ignore the evidence and call us "nutters"?

The facts are plain and simple. Fructose and glucose behave differently in the body. True, there is scant long term evidence of any substantial effects (because proper long-term studies haven't yet been performed), but there are plenty of short-term studies with repeatable and measurable differences in scientifically reviewed journal papers.

Yes, HFCS and sucrose are mixtures of fructose and glucose. But that point doesn't mean that there are "factual errors and biased reasoning" for anyone who perfers glucose over fructose. And the fact that both HFCS and sucrose are mixtures doesn't "refute the claims that HFCS is somehow unhealthy".

I think the real nutters are people who refuse to look at those studies, those who claim there is no difference between fructose and glucose, and those who throw in a red herring argument. Just because both HFCS and sucrose are mixtures doesn't somehow magically make glucose and fructose equal.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: Newbian

Originally posted by: Brainonska511
AFAIK, cane sugar is more expensive in the US compared with HFCS.

Well it's not as cheap to grow as corn is since most of the states can't grow sugar.

And it isn't heavily subsidized like corn.

The other way around,
sugar and sugar cane imports have high tariffs.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: Jadow

Originally posted by: 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.

it's no worse for you than a million other things. and it's no worse for you than sugar. HCFS gets a bad rap.

not true.

yes, although there was a study about 5 or 6 months ago about how there was no difference in the human body between hfcs and sugar, it was a poor study. it didn't talk at all about the nature of hfcs, byproducts of it, and it's overall result on the cellular and biochemical level.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...6/AR2009012601831.html
http://www.organicconsumers.or...cles/article_15241.cfm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/re...09/03/090303123802.htm
http://www.organicconsumers.or...icles/article_6210.cfm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/re...09/08/090826110118.htm
http://www.organicconsumers.or...cles/article_17345.cfm
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/76/5/911#SEC8
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/79/4/537
http://articles.mercola.com/si...nsulin-Resistance.aspx

Okay, where to start...

It's obvious you have no idea what a valid, peer reviewed and repeated study is so I'll just discredit your links for the masses:

First link: Unsubstantiated fear mongering. No amounts are given, meaning they are too small to raise a valid alarm.

Second link: Invalid poisoning of the wells, which is a joke, given the source.

Third link, and this is where ignorant people fail: Fructose is in sucrose as well. Both cane sugar and HFCS are hal/half fructose/glucose. A study on fructose is equally as damning of common cane sugar as it is of HFCS. Fail.

Forth link: Mercola. Enough said. I don;t even have to mention how his claims are completely unsupported by facts and he applies studies on fructose to HFCS. He's a quack.

Fifth link. Absurd. There have been no, none, nada cases of HMF poisoning. Trace amounts do NOT make a poison when many millions more times are needed to be toxic.

Sixth link: Irrelevant.

Seventh link: Again, you fail. Fructose is in table sugar same as HFCS. Only a dumbass would present a study showing harm from Frustose and claim it proves HFCS is worse than sugar, when both are HALF FRUCTOSE.

Eighth: A complete joke which combines the ever stupid "frucose studies =HFCS" mentality and claims a correlation = causation. It's not even a study, it's a unsupported theory. A posit.

Ninth: Mercola. 'Nuf said.

There's a reason you're a chiropractor and not a real doctor.

Folks, there is not a single valid study showing HFCS having any different long term or short term effects on the body or body fat than an equal amount of calories of sucrose consumed. Not a single one.

OH NO HE DEE'ENT!

 

[ahurtt]

Originally posted by: Gibsons

Originally posted by: Jeff7
Because of sweet business deals with the corn industry.

iseewhatyoudidthere

I hereby proclaim a new net-cronym. ISWYDT. (and I'm also claiming net-cronym while I'm at it.)

EDIT, crap nevermind, it's already in urban dictionary. But I'm still claiming "net-cronym."

 

[swbsam]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: swbsam
Well, with much respect, I think it's hilariously misguided to be as passionate about sweeteners are you are about 9/11. The truth is "revealing bullshit" might seem noble, but bullshit is all around us, and the definition of bullshit changes over time. Remember when cigarettes were considered healthy? A great way to stay fit? That was pretty much bullshit, but we didn't know that at the time.

The thing that's confusing to us mortals, us SO not in the know about the smear campaign those damn hippies are waging against HFCS, is quite simply why sugar isn't used more... Not because it's healthier, but because it's tastier. The bullshit to me is the subsidies corn is receiving since that's anti-competitive to this American - though I don't really care enough to post articles or debate.

edit: and, yes, I read ingredients when buying soda and quite often pay the extra quarter for products with real sugar, because I like it .. And that's good enough for me.

Truth is truth, whether it's about sugar or 9/11. If someone is passionate about truth then that person should be just as passionate about sweeteners as about 9/11; both the 9/11 conspiracy theorists and the anti-HFCS nutters are committing the same sorts of factual errors and biased reasoning. Both issues are symptomatic of the same lack of logical ability.

Your comparison to cigarettes is likewise based upon poor reasoning. You say that "bullshit changes over time", but that's not strictly correct. The popular perception of what is or is not bullshit does change over time, but what is actually bullshit does not. While there was indeed a time when we lacked the knowledge that cigarettes were significantly harmful, that is not the same as the present condition in which we actually do have data which refute the claims that HFCS is somehow unhealthy. There is a distinct difference between having insufficient evidence with which to judge (as was once the case with cigarettes) and having enough evidence but refusing to believe it (as is the case with the HFCS nutters).

ZV

But what's the value of being so passionate about truth? Why even spend the time googling studies that prove your point? Why bother? I understand seeking personal truths - that's a wise way to live. But why spend the energy debating trivial things, all in the pursuit of truth?

I just feel that there's so much wrong with this world - you noble champions of truth should pick up a cause worth fighting for and put your energy toward that.

Here's the thing - people like the way certain things taste, or the perceived clout that comes with that purchase (organic food). They'll say things, some baseless, to justify their position. Let em be. It's easier. Just let the "idiots" buy their pure, delicious raw sugar products while you sip on Kool-Aid, with the smug knowledge that one isn't really better than the other.

Why argue?

Edit: because the internet would implode if people didn't argue about unimportant shit

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
both the 9/11 conspiracy theorists and the anti-HFCS nutters are committing the same sorts of factual errors and biased reasoning. Both issues are symptomatic of the same lack of logical ability....we actually do have data which refute the claims that HFCS is somehow unhealthy. There is a distinct difference between having insufficient evidence with which to judge (as was once the case with cigarettes) and having enough evidence but refusing to believe it (as is the case with the HFCS nutters).

ZV

Care to comment on any of the multiple scientific studies that I posted? Or are you going to ignore the evidence and call us "nutters"?

The facts are plain and simple. Fructose and glucose behave differently in the body. True, there is scant long term evidence of any substantial effects (because proper long-term studies haven't yet been performed), but there are plenty of short-term studies with repeatable and measurable differences in scientifically reviewed journal papers.

Yes, HFCS and sucrose are mixtures of fructose and glucose. But that point doesn't mean that there are "factual errors and biased reasoning" for anyone who perfers glucose over fructose. And the fact that both HFCS and sucrose are mixtures doesn't "refute the claims that HFCS is somehow unhealthy".

I think the real nutters are people who refuse to look at those studies, those who claim there is no difference between fructose and glucose, and those who throw in a red herring argument. Just because both HFCS and sucrose are mixtures doesn't somehow magically make glucose and fructose equal.

As you have already admitted yourself, there is no indication that at normal consumption levels HFCS is any better or worse in the long term. Even the studies to which you link admit that there is no significant difference between HFCS and sucrose. What else need one know?

I can look at the studies you've posted for the next millennium and it won't change the fact that there is no evidence of any adverse health risk from HFCS at normal levels of consumption, so to avoid it for purely health reasons does indeed make one a bit of a nutter.

That said, I prefer the flavor of drinks that use sugar (sucrose) rather than HFCS and I can understand preferring sucrose for that reason, but that's not a health reason.

ZV

 

[darkswordsman17]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
both the 9/11 conspiracy theorists and the anti-HFCS nutters are committing the same sorts of factual errors and biased reasoning. Both issues are symptomatic of the same lack of logical ability....we actually do have data which refute the claims that HFCS is somehow unhealthy. There is a distinct difference between having insufficient evidence with which to judge (as was once the case with cigarettes) and having enough evidence but refusing to believe it (as is the case with the HFCS nutters).

ZV

Care to comment on any of the multiple scientific studies that I posted? Or are you going to ignore the evidence and call us "nutters"?

The facts are plain and simple. Fructose and glucose behave differently in the body. True, there is scant long term evidence of any substantial effects (because proper long-term studies haven't yet been performed), but there are plenty of short-term studies with repeatable and measurable differences in scientifically reviewed journal papers.

Yes, HFCS and sucrose are mixtures of fructose and glucose. But that point doesn't mean that there are "factual errors and biased reasoning" for anyone who perfers glucose over fructose. And the fact that both HFCS and sucrose are mixtures doesn't "refute the claims that HFCS is somehow unhealthy".

I think the real nutters are people who refuse to look at those studies, those who claim there is no difference between fructose and glucose, and those who throw in a red herring argument. Just because both HFCS and sucrose are mixtures doesn't somehow magically make glucose and fructose equal.

The problem is that their argument is between can sugar (sucrose) and HFCS. So while your point could possibly be valid if it was pure glucose or pure fructose being used, but that is not the case. Also, I'm not sure that glucose it would be directly substitutable for HFCS/sucrose.

As for why not glucose instead of either, beyond it being feasible to directly replace them, I would guess that added cost is a big factor. You said that its about mid 30 cents, so while that seems to not be much, its still 50% more than the alternative, and that adds up quickly when dealing with the quantities of mass food production. In healthy moderation (which is the real issue when it comes to health and sugar) is it any better (I didn't go through your links yet to find if it was completely conclusive)? If not, then companies have no incentive beyond price to go for it.

 

[torpid]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
both the 9/11 conspiracy theorists and the anti-HFCS nutters are committing the same sorts of factual errors and biased reasoning. Both issues are symptomatic of the same lack of logical ability....we actually do have data which refute the claims that HFCS is somehow unhealthy. There is a distinct difference between having insufficient evidence with which to judge (as was once the case with cigarettes) and having enough evidence but refusing to believe it (as is the case with the HFCS nutters).

ZV

Care to comment on any of the multiple scientific studies that I posted? Or are you going to ignore the evidence and call us "nutters"?

The facts are plain and simple. Fructose and glucose behave differently in the body. True, there is scant long term evidence of any substantial effects (because proper long-term studies haven't yet been performed), but there are plenty of short-term studies with repeatable and measurable differences in scientifically reviewed journal papers.

Yes, HFCS and sucrose are mixtures of fructose and glucose. But that point doesn't mean that there are "factual errors and biased reasoning" for anyone who perfers glucose over fructose. And the fact that both HFCS and sucrose are mixtures doesn't "refute the claims that HFCS is somehow unhealthy".

I think the real nutters are people who refuse to look at those studies, those who claim there is no difference between fructose and glucose, and those who throw in a red herring argument. Just because both HFCS and sucrose are mixtures doesn't somehow magically make glucose and fructose equal.

As you have already admitted yourself, there is no indication that at normal consumption levels HFCS is any better or worse in the long term. Even the studies to which you link admit that there is no significant difference between HFCS and sucrose. What else need one know?

I can look at the studies you've posted for the next millennium and it won't change the fact that there is no evidence of any adverse health risk from HFCS at normal levels of consumption, so to avoid it for purely health reasons does indeed make one a bit of a nutter.

That said, I prefer the flavor of drinks that use sugar (sucrose) rather than HFCS and I can understand preferring sucrose for that reason, but that's not a health reason.

ZV

I think it's safe to say that no one who is arguing against dullard understands his point so far, and you are just another example. Dullard is saying that using pure or mostly-pure glucose would be better than either HFCS or sugar. He posted a lot of links indicating this. Read them again, then read his post. Then read his post again. Perhaps a 3rd time.

I am not a chemist so I have no idea if glucose is suitable for stuff like basic bread baking, but I don't understand why so many people are having such massive failures to comprehend his basic point. It would be nice if someone could chime in as to whether it is practical to use mostly glucose instead of sucrose or hfcs. My guess is not...

Another common failure in this thread is equating beet sugar with cane sugar. A few people did this as well.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: swbsam
But what's the value of being so passionate about truth? Why even spend the time googling studies that prove your point? Why bother? I understand seeking personal truths - that's a wise way to live. But why spend the energy debating trivial things, all in the pursuit of truth?

I just feel that there's so much wrong with this world - you noble champions of truth should pick up a cause worth fighting for and put your energy toward that.

Here's the thing - people like the way certain things taste, or the perceived clout that comes with that purchase (organic food). They'll say things, some baseless, to justify their position. Let em be. It's easier. Just let the "idiots" buy their pure, delicious raw sugar products while you sip on Kool-Aid, with the smug knowledge that one isn't really better than the other.

Why argue?

Edit: because the internet would implode if people didn't argue about unimportant shit

Actually, it's because it's a good way to keep my mind stimulated and keep in practice for creating, defending, and refuting logical arguments. More interactive and challenging than just watching TV or something. Of all the things I could do when I have down-time at the office, I might as well choose one that keeps my mind active. *shrug*

ZV

 

[kalrith]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
I want the Mountain Dew Throwback to be permanent.

According to http://www.pepsithrowbackhub.com/:

Due to all the Throwback tweets, Facebook fan pages, videos, blog posts, pics & pleas, Pepsi Throwback is coming back!! Starting December 28th Pepsi and Mountain Dew Throwback will be available again for 8 weeks with the same formula and natural sugar, but this time with an even more rad vintage look!

So, we will get to enjoy it one more time. I also wish it would be permanent.

 

[Fingolfin269]

I stopped reading at 9/11 conspiracy... Seriously people.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
both the 9/11 conspiracy theorists and the anti-HFCS nutters are committing the same sorts of factual errors and biased reasoning. Both issues are symptomatic of the same lack of logical ability....we actually do have data which refute the claims that HFCS is somehow unhealthy. There is a distinct difference between having insufficient evidence with which to judge (as was once the case with cigarettes) and having enough evidence but refusing to believe it (as is the case with the HFCS nutters).

ZV

Care to comment on any of the multiple scientific studies that I posted? Or are you going to ignore the evidence and call us "nutters"?

The facts are plain and simple. Fructose and glucose behave differently in the body. True, there is scant long term evidence of any substantial effects (because proper long-term studies haven't yet been performed), but there are plenty of short-term studies with repeatable and measurable differences in scientifically reviewed journal papers.

Yes, HFCS and sucrose are mixtures of fructose and glucose. But that point doesn't mean that there are "factual errors and biased reasoning" for anyone who perfers glucose over fructose. And the fact that both HFCS and sucrose are mixtures doesn't "refute the claims that HFCS is somehow unhealthy".

I think the real nutters are people who refuse to look at those studies, those who claim there is no difference between fructose and glucose, and those who throw in a red herring argument. Just because both HFCS and sucrose are mixtures doesn't somehow magically make glucose and fructose equal.

As you have already admitted yourself, there is no indication that at normal consumption levels HFCS is any better or worse in the long term. Even the studies to which you link admit that there is no significant difference between HFCS and sucrose. What else need one know?

I can look at the studies you've posted for the next millennium and it won't change the fact that there is no evidence of any adverse health risk from HFCS at normal levels of consumption, so to avoid it for purely health reasons does indeed make one a bit of a nutter.

That said, I prefer the flavor of drinks that use sugar (sucrose) rather than HFCS and I can understand preferring sucrose for that reason, but that's not a health reason.

ZV

I think it's safe to say that no one who is arguing against dullard understands his point so far, and you are just another example. Dullard is saying that using pure or mostly-pure glucose would be better than either HFCS or sugar. He posted a lot of links indicating this. Read them again, then read his post. Then read his post again. Perhaps a 3rd time.

I am not a chemist so I have no idea if glucose is suitable for stuff like basic bread baking, but I don't understand why so many people are having such massive failures to comprehend his basic point. It would be nice if someone could chime in as to whether it is practical to use mostly glucose instead of sucrose or hfcs. My guess is not...

Another common failure in this thread is equating beet sugar with cane sugar. A few people did this as well.

Given that every other post in the thread other than Dullard's is about HFCS vs sucrose, it should not be surprising at all that his posts are misunderstood.

In any case, given the fact that the thread itself is about the HFCS vs sucrose debate and not about HFCS vs pure glucose it ought to have been clear that my own post (to which Dullard responded) was regarding only the sucrose/HFCS debate. Just as it would have been asinine to come in and say that I was crazy for saying that people who preferred to avoid sugar at all were the "anti-HFCS" people to whom I referred in my post, so too was it asinine for him to assume that my comments about "anti-HFCS" people referred to those who sought pure glucose.

ZV

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
As you have already admitted yourself, there is no indication that at normal consumption levels HFCS is any better or worse in the long term. Even the studies to which you link admit that there is no significant difference between HFCS and sucrose. What else need one know?

If you actually read my post and the links, there is little indication because there really are no proper long-term studies. That doesn't mean that there isn't a difference though, it just means that we haven't studied it properly. The very first link was a 10 week study (as opposed to the normal study which is much shorter) and there WAS a difference. Although, it still isn't a lifetime study.

But there are plenty of differences between the various sweeteners short term. Take a diabetic for example; fructose will behave far differently than glucose for the diabetic. That is a good enough health reason to avoid one sugar and use the other. That diabetic isn't a "nutter".

Fructose has its benefits and drawbacks. Glucose has its benefits and drawbacks. People aren't a nutter because they perfer one over the other for health reasons. Thus, people aren't a "nutter" if they choose one mixture over the other (especially since the contents are in different proportions).

A nutter would be someone who perfers table sugar (50/50) over both HFCS-55 and HFCS-42 for health reasons. That person would be a nutter because one choice contradicts the other choice.

Originally posted by: darkswordsman17
The problem is that their argument is between can sugar (sucrose) and HFCS. So while your point could possibly be valid if it was pure glucose or pure fructose being used, but that is not the case. Also, I'm not sure that glucose it would be directly substitutable for HFCS/sucrose.

The problem is that is the wrong argument to have. Anytime someone comes in here bashing fructose, people come in here with that same arguement "no study shows that HCFS is worse than sucrose". That statement is roughly true. But that statement distracts from the REAL issue of fructose vs glucose. It is like me stating "Ball State is a crappy football team" and Amused's response is "Eastern Michigan is just as crappy and they both play for the Mid-American Conference". Ok, Amused is 100% correct (like he often is). But, Amused's argument meant nothing to my post about Ball State. It just distracts from the real issue that Ball State is a crappy team. It is a distraction tactic, and not a truth finding debate.

I'm not an expert industrial chef, so I have no knowledge regarding the substitutability. If anyone knows, I'd like to learn.

 

[Amused]

Dullard,

How expensive is pure glucose?

From my suppliments, I gather it is rather quite a bit more expensive than cane/beet sugar and HFCS.

And yes, I do agree that pure glucose is healthier than Sugar and HFCS, which is why I use it to take creatine.

At any rate, I don't think that's the debate here. The debate seems to be the myth that HFCS is worse for you than cane/beet sugar. In all fairness, you're coming into one debate and trying to shift focus to another, then kicking and screaming when people won't follow your tangent.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: dullard
A nutter would be someone who perfers table sugar (50/50) over both HFCS-55 and HFCS-42 for health reasons. That person would be a nutter because one choice contradicts the other choice.

And, given that the entire context of the thread is about HFCS vs sucrose (i.e. table sugar vs HFCS-55 or HFCS-42), that is exactly and exclusively the person of whom I was speaking.

ZV

 

[darkswordsman17]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
As you have already admitted yourself, there is no indication that at normal consumption levels HFCS is any better or worse in the long term. Even the studies to which you link admit that there is no significant difference between HFCS and sucrose. What else need one know?

If you actually read my post and the links, there is no indication because there really are no proper long-term studies. That doesn't mean that there isn't a difference though, it just means that we haven't studied it properly. But there are plenty of differences between the various sweeteners short term. Take a diabetic for example; fructose will behave far differently than glucose for the diabetic. That is good enough reason to avoid one sugar and use the other. That diabetic isn't a "nutter".

Fructose has its benefits and drawbacks. Glucose has its benefits and drawbacks. People aren't a nutter because they perfer one over the other for health reasons. People aren't a "nutter" if they choose one mixture over the other (especially since the contents are in different proportions).

Originally posted by: darkswordsman17
The problem is that their argument is between can sugar (sucrose) and HFCS. So while your point could possibly be valid if it was pure glucose or pure fructose being used, but that is not the case. Also, I'm not sure that glucose it would be directly substitutable for HFCS/sucrose.

The problem is that is the wrong argument to have. Anytime someone comes in here bashing fructose, people come in here with that same arguement "no study shows that HCFS is worse than sucrose". That statement is roughly true. But that statement distracts from the REAL issue of fructose vs glucose. It is like me stating that Ball State is a crappy football team and Amused's response is "Eastern Michigan is just as crappy and they both play for the Mid-American Conference". Ok, Amused is 100% correct (like he often is). But, Amused's argument meant nothing to my post about Ball State. It just distracts from the real issue that Ball State is a crappy team. It is a distraction tactic, and not a truth finding debate.

I'm not an expert industrial chef, so I have no knowledge regarding the substitutability. If anyone knows, I'd like to learn.

I'm not sure how its the wrong argument? They're trying to say that consumption of foods with HFCS is worse for your health than those with sucrose. In other words, its the real world argument (because thats the choices given in the real world, as so far there's been no evidence that pure glucose based foods is an alternative). So, while you can argue that glucose is better than fructose (which seems to be true although there's definitely a lot more research needed to prove anything trully conclusive), the fact is, it doesn't matter if our choice does not involve just glucose versus just fructose.

And so your point actually is another obvious reason why the HFCS is worse argument is stupid. They're arguing that things that something that is basically equal is worse than the other. That is simple failure of logic and reason. That is what is being called bullshit, not that glucose or fructose is better.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Amused
Dullard,

How expensive is pure glucose?

From my suppliments, I gather it is rather quite a bit more expensive than cane/beet sugar and HFCS.

And yes, I do agree that pure glucose is healthier than Sugar and HFCS, which is why I use it to take creatine.

At any rate, I don't think that's the debate here. The debate seems to be the myth that HFCS is worse for you than cane/beet sugar. In all fairness, you're coming into one debate and trying to shift focus to another, then kicking and screaming when people won't follow your tangent.

I posted a link earlier. 34 cents per pound for glucose.

The tangent is to try and divert the repeated threads that we have on this issue. Someone bashes fructose and we get in this huge debate over and over again. That is the wrong debate to have. There are two common sugars for sweetening, fructose and glucose (ignoring sugars like lactose which have issues of their own). I just want to help us focus on fructose vs. glucose rather than the tired old mixture A vs mixture B argument. I realize that I'll fail in this attempt. But, I hopefuly can make people think next time (especially since it is the same players repeatedly, enough so that a callout can be made before the argument really started).

There is evidence that fructose is bad for some people. I'd like simply to end the posts that imply that there is no evidence that fructose is bad for some people.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: Amused
Dullard,

How expensive is pure glucose?

From my suppliments, I gather it is rather quite a bit more expensive than cane/beet sugar and HFCS.

And yes, I do agree that pure glucose is healthier than Sugar and HFCS, which is why I use it to take creatine.

At any rate, I don't think that's the debate here. The debate seems to be the myth that HFCS is worse for you than cane/beet sugar. In all fairness, you're coming into one debate and trying to shift focus to another, then kicking and screaming when people won't follow your tangent.

I posted a link earlier. 34 cents per pound for glucose.

The tangent is to try and divert the repeated threads that we have on this issue. Someone bashes fructose and we get in this huge debate over and over again. That is the wrong debate to have. There are two common sugars for sweetening, fructose and glucose (ignoring sugars like lactose which have issues of their own). I just want to help us focus on fructose vs. glucose rather than the tired old mixture A vs mixture B argument. I realize that I'll fail in this attempt. But, I hopefuly can make people think next time (especially since it is the same players repeatedly, enough so that a callout can be made before the argument really started).

There is evidence that fructose is bad for some people. I'd like simply to end the posts that imply that there is no evidence that fructose is bad for some people.

We never said fructose wasn't bad in excess. Only that sugar and HFCS are equally bad in excess. And glucose, while not as bad as sucrose and HFCS is still bad for you in excess.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Amused
We never said fructose wasn't bad in excess. Only that sugar and HFCS are equally bad in excess. And glucose, while not as bad as sucrose and HFCS is still bad for you in excess.

Unless I missed something, your posts have been entirely correct so far. But, your posts are also highly misleading because they can be taken to mean that fructose is good (or at least as good as other alternatives). So I stepped in. There can be better alternatives.

 

[darkswordsman17]

See, this thread has been productive. Now we just need to figure out if there's some reason for not using glucose. I don't think the price pans out, as dextrose was roughly equal in price to HFCS (based on that ERS/USDA price link that Dullard provided earlier), and glucose syrup is actually cheaper. At least I think that's right, the HFCS chart has 3 different indexes, and the last one says to multiply the price by 0.71 to get the commercial/net weight, so that might put it closer to the price of glucose syrup.

Hmm, they have a good food science program here, maybe I should try contacting them and see what they have to say about all of this.

 

[KingGheedora]

Eitis got owned. HFCS has fructose in the same proportion as sucrose. Fructose has calories but doesn't trigger fullness, which is why HFCS is bad for you, but "normal sugar" is equally as bad for you since it contains the same amount of fructose. Eitis basically claims HFCS is worse than sugar, cannot provide evidence of it, and supports his argument by saying "scientists might prove it in the future". This thread (http://forums.anandtech.com/me...2333717&enterthread=y) has a link to a video lecture by a professor at UCSF that explains exactly why/how soft drinks are horrible for our health, and he touches on the HFCS vs. sugar thing as well.

Dullard, I think glucose is not used mainly because fructose tastes twice as sweet as glucose: http://biology.clc.uc.edu/cour...o104/carbohydrates.htm

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: Amused
We never said fructose wasn't bad in excess. Only that sugar and HFCS are equally bad in excess. And glucose, while not as bad as sucrose and HFCS is still bad for you in excess.

Unless I missed something, your posts have been entirely correct so far. But, your posts are also highly misleading because they can be taken to mean that fructose is good (or at least as good as other alternatives). So I stepped in. There can be better alternatives.

If you think my posts said or implied that your reading comprehension sucks.

Go back to where I addressed the Fructose studies and said they were equally damning of sugar and HFCS.

Also where I addressed the study using 20% of daily vcalories from HFCS/Sugar.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: KingGheedora
Eitis got owned. HFCS has fructose in the same proportion as sucrose. Fructose has calories but doesn't trigger fullness, which is why HFCS is bad for you, but "normal sugar" is equally as bad for you since it contains the same amount of fructose. Eitis basically claims HFCS is worse than sugar, cannot provide evidence of it, and supports his argument by saying "scientists might prove it in the future". This thread (http://forums.anandtech.com/me...2333717&enterthread=y) has a link to a video lecture by a professor at UCSF that explains exactly why/how soft drinks are horrible for our health, and he touches on the HFCS vs. sugar thing as well.

Dullard, I think glucose is not used mainly because fructose tastes twice as sweet as glucose: http://biology.clc.uc.edu/cour...o104/carbohydrates.htm

I was going to ask if there was a food chemist in the house who could explain why it's not used.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Amused
If you think my posts said or implied that your reading comprehension sucks.

Go back to where I addressed the Fructose studies and said they were equally damning of sugar and HFCS.

Also where I addressed the study using 20% of daily vcalories from HFCS/Sugar.

I must be reading at a higher level (ie combining all of your posts into one comprehensive body).

If the word "fructose" comes in a thread, you are almost 100% guaranteed to write something along the lines of "no studies show that HFCS is worse than sugar". Every single thread that I've seen with fructose in the title (or HFCS), you are there posting the same thing.

Yes, you are equally damning of both in that post. But you attack the people who are against fructose far more heavily (I've never seen you attack other sweeteners with such wrath, although I may have missed some threads). There are threads where you are basically the first poster with any real content, threads where nothing at all was said about sugar, and you are there defending HFCS so stanchly against sugar even though no one else mentioned sugar.

These lopsided attacks form a pattern. It looks as if you feel HFCS is equal. When in fact, it isn't equal if you consider all alternatives. It could be better or it could be worse depending on the individual's need. The differences are slight (especially when comparing HFCS to sucrose), but it isn't equal to other sweeteners.

Am I to appologize for remembering the context of multiple threads? Does that mean my reading comprehension sucks? If it sucks, then others must really, really suck. And in that case, maybe you'll get your point across better with another tactic.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: Amused
If you think my posts said or implied that your reading comprehension sucks.

Go back to where I addressed the Fructose studies and said they were equally damning of sugar and HFCS.

Also where I addressed the study using 20% of daily vcalories from HFCS/Sugar.

I must be reading at a higher level (ie combining all of your posts into one comprehensive body).

If the word "fructose" comes in a thread, you are almost 100% guaranteed to write something along the lines of "no studies show that HFCS is worse than sugar". Every single thread that I've seen with fructose in the title (or HFCS), you are there posting the same thing.

Yes, you are equally damning of both in that post. But you attack the people who are against fructose far more heavily (I've never seen you attack other sweeteners with such wrath, although I may have missed some threads). There are threads where you are basically the first poster with any real content, threads where nothing at all was said about sugar, and you are there defending HFCS so stanchly against sugar even though no one else mentioned sugar.

These lopsided attacks form a pattern. It looks as if you feel HFCS is equal. When in fact, it isn't equal if you consider all alternatives. It could be better or it could be worse depending on the individual's need. The differences are slight (especially when comparing HFCS to sucrose), but it isn't equal to other sweeteners.

Am I to appologize for remembering the context of multiple threads? Does that mean my reading comprehension sucks? If it sucks, then others must really, really suck. And in that case, maybe you'll get your point across better with another tactic.

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.