High Fructose Corn Syrup proposed to be renamed "corn sugar"

[david_42]

Last time I was in a fast food restaurant, it occurred to me that the small- 22 oz was bigger than a large (16) in the 1950s. I suspect the real problem is 64 oz servings. Stuff in - stuff out = accumulation.

The woman at the counter had trouble with my insisting on a small, when all sizes were the same price. Her brain finally stopped spinning when I explained (not the real reason) that my cup holder only took the small size.

I got diet, because HFCS gives me the trots.

 

[RogerMcAllen]

I don't know for sure, but I would hypothesize 2 possibilities:

1) There is a small amount of water remaining in HFCS which is extremely expensive and difficult to remove from the syrup.

2) HFCS is a mixture of glucose and fructose which, although they have the same molecular formula, have different structures. These structures are unable to pack tightly enough to crystallize.

I tend to lean towards #2, but I don't know for sure

#2. Dextrose crystallizes readily, but fructose does not.

Fun fact: Ever wonder how they make those chocolate covered cherries with the soft center? It starts as a hard dextrose center and then they inject an isomerase similar to the one used to make HFCS. The crystalline dextrose converts into a non-crystallizing fructose and voila, soft center.

 

[Bullshivit-brew]

Roger you must work for the competition lol

 

[RogerMcAllen]

Roger you must work for the competition lol

I plead the fifth.

Another series of fun facts for HFCS haters:
What is invert sugar? Sucrose (table sugar) that has been broken into glucose and fructose.
How do you make invert sugar? Dissolve sugar in an acidid solution and heat it.
How do you make full sugar soda? Dissolve sugar in an acidic solution and ship across the country in the back of a truck at 110F during the summer.

If you drink sucrose sweetened pop in the summer, or store cans in the garage you are drinking HFCS.

 

[Edcculus]

I think the biggest problem with HFCS is that it is added to freaking everything. Too much sugar is bad for you, no matter what form it is in. The problem is that HFCS makes it that much cheaper. Not to totally derail the thread, but I feel very strongly about this.

Yes, molecularly HFCS isn't much different than any sugar. HFCS is pretty bad, but not for the exact nutritional reasons most people tout. Cheap corn (and cheap soy) have led to a plethora of cheap crappy processed food products. I can't even find bread in the grocery store that doesn't contain HFCS for God's sake! I steer away from any product with HFCS in it. Not because the product itself is going to kill me, but because it is a great marker for any food product that is overly processed.

So, maybe HFCS is the sorry bastard child of a bloated corn industry propped up by government grants and spending. The fact is that cheap commodity corn has made America fat. Feedlot meat cows are fed....corn, making meat unnecessarily cheap (and filled with antibotics since cows aren't evolved to dine on corn). I think if Americans had to pay a little more for food, they might think twice about guzzling that 5th can of soda (no matter what sugar is in it). While HFCS might not be inherently bad for you, or evil, in my mind, it stands out as the biggest scapegoat for what is wrong with how America eats. Thus, changing the name is only trying to trick the public into consuming more overly processed foods. Just because your soda, or gummy snacks say "corn sugar" instead of "High Fructose Corn Syrup" doesn't make them any more natural or better for you.

 

[COLObrewer]

All this sugar talk is one reason why I have been converting to "grow your own" as much as possible for 10 years now, you don't really know what goes into the processed foods. That being said, if I dined entirely on steaks from our all natural, grass fed naturally lean highland cattle or drank nothing but honey, It's still not good for me. It's a matter of will power and to a certain degree, "getting a life" away from the **** tube, etc.

Sorry

 

[JVD_X]

without turning this into a debate thread, then the "fears" of HFCS causing health problems compared to "real" sugar are pretty much unsubstantiated?

All I know is that when I stopped eating foods with HFCS I dropped 55 pounds in 6 months.

 

[rayg]

I don't suppose it will do any good to combat the solidly
entrenched suburban myth, but I'll try anyway....

Unless you have the fructose malabsorption problem (wikipedia
says 30-40% of people of Central European descent have it),
there is nothing - repeat - nothing - wrong with fructose, or
high fructose corn syrup. Sucrose falls apart into an equilibrium
mix of glucose and fructose, both open and closed chain forms,
in aqueous solution. Fruits, which humans beings evolved to eat,
contain high amounts of fructose. You can buy 100% fructose
on most supermarket shelves. There is no difference in taste
between glucose, sucrose and fructose, which you can test
yourself as they are available commercially in pure form. The syrup
is a syrup for the same reason that all syrups are syrups: because
they have water in them. Fructose happens to be the most
soluble in water of the simple sugars, but it will crystallize
from water at the right concentration and temperature. There
is also no significant difference in calories per gram of those
sugars, but because fructose is sweeter, you can use less
of it to get the same effect, which is why you can buy it
in supermarkets, because some people use it for dieting.

Whether you get 250 calories from a sucrose soda or a
HFCS soda, it's still 250 calories. If you drink 6 of them
a day, you will probably put on a lot of weight. Most of
the people who are doing that are also spending a lot
of time in the drive-thru. Given that a 180 pound man
burns about 2200 calories a day if he's not excercising,
taking in 2700 calories a day will mean that he puts on
a pound of fat per week (3500 calories/pd), and given
that a quarter pounder, large fries and large non-diet
soda is about 1600 calories, it's not too surprising many
people put on weight if they are doing that and drinking
lots of HFCS soda and pastries, but it's the calories,
not the HFCS.

Ray

 

[jbrookeiv]

I don't suppose it will do any good to combat the solidly
entrenched suburban myth, but I'll try anyway....

Unless you have the fructose malabsorption problem (wikipedia
says 30-40% of people of Central European descent have it),
there is nothing - repeat - nothing - wrong with fructose, or
high fructose corn syrup. Sucrose falls apart into an equilibrium
mix of glucose and fructose, both open and closed chain forms,
in aqueous solution. Fruits, which humans beings evolved to eat,
contain high amounts of fructose. You can buy 100% fructose
on most supermarket shelves. There is no difference in taste
between glucose, sucrose and fructose, which you can test
yourself as they are available commercially in pure form. The syrup
is a syrup for the same reason that all syrups are syrups: because
they have water in them. Fructose happens to be the most
soluble in water of the simple sugars, but it will crystallize
from water at the right concentration and temperature. There
is also no significant difference in calories per gram of those
sugars, but because fructose is sweeter, you can use less
of it to get the same effect, which is why you can buy it
in supermarkets, because some people use it for dieting.

Whether you get 250 calories from a sucrose soda or a
HFCS soda, it's still 250 calories. If you drink 6 of them
a day, you will probably put on a lot of weight. Most of
the people who are doing that are also spending a lot
of time in the drive-thru. Given that a 180 pound man
burns about 2200 calories a day if he's not excercising,
taking in 2700 calories a day will mean that he puts on
a pound of fat per week (3500 calories/pd), and given
that a quarter pounder, large fries and large non-diet
soda is about 1600 calories, it's not too surprising many
people put on weight if they are doing that and drinking
lots of HFCS soda and pastries, but it's the calories,
not the HFCS.

Ray

I think the argument is that HFCS is less filling than regular sugar, not that there is anything inherently unhealthy about it.

Drink 2 Kosher or Mexican Cokes (both made with cane sugar) and 2 HFCS Cokes and tell me you don't feel the difference.

 

[Bullshivit-brew]

If you have read this post you should see why they want to change the name

 

[kxx]

I don't suppose it will do any good to combat the solidly
entrenched suburban myth, but I'll try anyway....

Unless you have the fructose malabsorption problem (wikipedia
says 30-40% of people of Central European descent have it),
there is nothing - repeat - nothing - wrong with fructose, or
high fructose corn syrup. Sucrose falls apart into an equilibrium
mix of glucose and fructose, both open and closed chain forms,
in aqueous solution. Fruits, which humans beings evolved to eat,
contain high amounts of fructose. You can buy 100% fructose
on most supermarket shelves. There is no difference in taste
between glucose, sucrose and fructose, which you can test
yourself as they are available commercially in pure form. The syrup
is a syrup for the same reason that all syrups are syrups: because
they have water in them. Fructose happens to be the most
soluble in water of the simple sugars, but it will crystallize
from water at the right concentration and temperature. There
is also no significant difference in calories per gram of those
sugars, but because fructose is sweeter, you can use less
of it to get the same effect, which is why you can buy it
in supermarkets, because some people use it for dieting.

Whether you get 250 calories from a sucrose soda or a
HFCS soda, it's still 250 calories. If you drink 6 of them
a day, you will probably put on a lot of weight. Most of
the people who are doing that are also spending a lot
of time in the drive-thru. Given that a 180 pound man
burns about 2200 calories a day if he's not excercising,
taking in 2700 calories a day will mean that he puts on
a pound of fat per week (3500 calories/pd), and given
that a quarter pounder, large fries and large non-diet
soda is about 1600 calories, it's not too surprising many
people put on weight if they are doing that and drinking
lots of HFCS soda and pastries, but it's the calories,
not the HFCS.

Ray

gram for gram fructose has been correlated with higher incidence of diabetes, higher triglyceride levels and so on, compared to glucose. Explaining this, biochemically, is an active area of research.

fructose is found in most things "naturally" sweetened, so the only way to protect yourself is to be aware of what is in the foods you eat.

I agree with Ray, in that if one eats 5000 calories/day the added risk of fructose compared to glucose should be the least of your concerns.

 

[rayg]

gram for gram fructose has been correlated with higher incidence of diabetes, higher triglyceride levels and so on, compared to glucose. Explaining this, biochemically, is an active area of research.

And I would guess that what they would find is that it's the overall
diet pattern of people who eat lots of fructose that is the problem, not
the fructose itself.

There are lots of studies that purport to find something wrong with salt
wrt blood pressure. Yet no correlation has ever been determined in the
solid studies. The reason is that the people who eat lots of sodium generally
are eating lots of high calorie prepared foods that make them overweight,
and because they are NOT getting the other salts essential for health, such
as magnesium ("an apple a day....") because they only eat high sodium
foods (sodium, not table salt). All of these prepared foods on the shelf
have organic sodium salts like sodium benzoate, sodium inosylate,
sodium guanylate, monosodium glutamate etc., all of which make you
retain water longer than table salt (because they are more fat soluble
and are retained in tissues longer) which exacerbates their weight problem.
The amount of sodium from table salt you shake on your food is negligible
compared to what's in a single can of, say, baked beans.

Ray

 

[kxx]

And I would guess that what they would find is that it's the overall
diet pattern of people who eat lots of fructose that is the problem, not
the fructose itself.



Ray

Actually, the "solid" studies that have demonstrated these correlations have adjusted (or controlled, or basically have been accounted) for other dietary components. So, two groups each eating food of the exact same composition, EXCEPT for the levels of fructose or glucose.

Those with a higher % of fructose in their meal --of otherwise exact same composition-- have higher incidence of weight gain, insulin resistance and elevated triglycerides - compared to those with same % increase in glucose in their meal.

Why this is happening, mechanistically or biochemically, is the question many are investigating.

 

[rayg]

Actually, the "solid" studies that have demonstrated these correlations have adjusted (or controlled, or basically have been accounted) for other dietary components. So, two groups each eating food of the exact same composition, EXCEPT for the levels of fructose or glucose.

And how do they do that? Do they lock two groups of people in
a room for a year and feed them exactly the same things, where one
group gets extra fructose and the other doesn't, and with a control
group that gets extra sucrose, and another control group that gets
extra glucose? Because that's what you would need to do, and I
know that's not being done.

Ray

 

[RogerMcAllen]

And how do they do that? Do they lock two groups of people in
a room for a year and feed them exactly the same things, where one
group gets extra fructose and the other doesn't, and with a control
group that gets extra sucrose, and another control group that gets
extra glucose? Because that's what you would need to do, and I
know that's not being done.

Ray

They usually do it with rats instead of humans. Another trick they like to pull is that they will feed the rats only fructose, as opposed to a glucose/fructose blend like you would find in sucrose or HFCS.

 

[Edcculus]

IMO, you are missing the point as to WHY HFCS is bad. By itself, it may not be any better or worse than any other sugar. HFCS appears in nearly all highly processed foods. You can't argue that eating a lot of highly processed foods is good for you.

 

[RogerMcAllen]

Soldiers, astronauts, and adventurers/explorers are some of the healthiest people I know, and they survive on highly processed food for months at a time while performing enduring physical acts.

IMO, you are missing the point as to WHY WATER is bad. By itself, it may not be any better or worse than any other beverage. Water appears in all cancerous tumors. You can't argue that having cancer is good for you.

 

[Edcculus]

Soldiers, astronauts, and adventurers/explorers are some of the healthiest people I know, and they survive on highly processed food for months at a time while performing enduring physical acts.

IMO, you are missing the point as to WHY WATER is bad. By itself, it may not be any better or worse than any other beverage. Water appears in all cancerous tumors. You can't argue that having cancer is good for you.

Key word. They are a massive minority of the population and are eating those foods because it is what is available to them. Your water argument is stupid, because the human body is something like 50-80% water.

All i'm trying to say is that diets of most Americans suck, as can be seen by the influx of diabetes, heart disease and even cancer in our society. Highly processed foods, and thus HFCS absolutely play a part in that.

 

[RogerMcAllen]

Both of our arguments are stupid because correlation does not imply causation.

HFCS can't make you fat on its own. No one ever stood on a rail car full of HFCS and got diabetes. The uneducated/lazy American consumer eating to excess is responsible for the influx of diabetes, heart disease and even cancer in our society. The HFCS/processed foods argument is a scapegoat for people that don't want to take personal responsibility. I freely admit eating Twinkies and Coke all day will most likely make you fat, but you have to blame the people. Guns aren't bad, murders are bad. Cars aren't bad, drunk drivers are bad. A proper statement regarding HFCS would be, "People making poor diet choices leads to diabetes, etc." as opposed to "HFCS leads to diabetes, etc.".

As is, I think we are skirting on the edges of what is acceptable here so I'll leave it at that.

 

[rico567]

Both of our arguments are stupid because correlation does not imply causation.

HFCS can't make you fat on its own. No one ever stood on a rail car full of HFCS and got diabetes. The uneducated/lazy American consumer eating to excess is responsible for the influx of diabetes, heart disease and even cancer in our society. The HFCS/processed foods argument is a scapegoat for people that don't want to take personal responsibility. I freely admit eating Twinkies and Coke all day will most likely make you fat, but you have to blame the people. Guns aren't bad, murders are bad. Cars aren't bad, drunk drivers are bad. A proper statement regarding HFCS would be, "People making poor diet choices leads to diabetes, etc." as opposed to "HFCS leads to diabetes, etc.".

As is, I think we are skirting on the edges of what is acceptable here so I'll leave it at that.

Yes- it is less and less accceptable all the time to even imply that "responsibility" exists. It's on the way to joining other words on the scrap heap...like "mind" and "soul."