Fuck you Corn Refiners Association, and your foul tasting garbage scumming up every foodstuff you pollute with it.Have you ever actually tasted pure corn syrup? Supposedly it tastes like honey. (I have not)
Awhile back, my wife grabbed a couple of cans of what she thought was Contadina Tomato Paste (Ingredients: Tomatoes. Period.) Instead, she accidentally grabbed cans of Contadina Tomato Paste with Tomato Pesto which lists high fructose corn syrup second on the ingredient list. Gah! There's no need for HFCS in that shit.What I don't get is why it matters that HFCS exists, as opposed to the amount of HFCS. Contadina Tomato Paste with Tomato Pesto contains 4 grams of sugar. Whereas the Plain tomato paste contains 3 grams. So we are talking about a single gram of sugar more in the form of HCFS.
"A Princeton University research team has demonstrated that all sweeteners are not equal when it comes to weight gain: Rats with access to high-fructose corn syrup gained significantly more weight than those with access to table sugar, even when their overall caloric intake was the same."It would be interesting to see the actual paper, though. That's just a press release. On the other hand (from wikipedia):
March 22, 2010
Bocarsly et al.[42][40][43] completed a 2010 study where groups of 10 rats were given 8% HFCS 12 hrs/day, 8% HFCS 24 hrs/day, 10% sucrose 12 hrs/day, all with ad libitum rodent chow, or only ad libitum rodent chow for a duration of 8 weeks. Then groups of 8 male rats were fed to compare diets with added sweetener in the form of HFCS to ones without added sweetener for 6 months. Then groups of 8 female rats were fed to compare diets with no or different kinds of added sweeteners to ones without for 7 months. One set of rats on HFCS 12 hrs/day gained more weight than a set of rats on sucrose 12 hrs/day in young males over the short term, but less in adult females over the long term. They also reported that the rats on HFCS 24 hrs/day did not gain a statistically significant amount of weight when compared to the rats on sucrose or chow only. Additionally, no differences in blood-glucose levels were observed. Another study was conducted for 6-7 months, and fat pads were removed from the rats and weighed. Fat pads for rats on HFCS 12 hrs/day weighed significantly more than rats on chow only, but weighed less, but not significantly so, for rats on sucrose. Fat pads for rats on HFCS 24 hrs/day did not have a statistically different weight than rats on chow only.[44]So in other experiments it was actually the case that eating HFCS constantly resulted in no weight gain, while eating HFCS for just half a day resulted in gaining weight. So the weight gain in mice is dependent on the timing and other things. And on top of that, the 12 hour HFCS mice gained less weight then the 12 hour sucrose mice. (but the concentration of sucrose was higher)
I harvested 4 tomatoes from my garden this morning, a green pepper yesterday, about a billion jalapeños this weekend, have drying basil hanging up and will dig up the potatoes in a couple weeks.Yes, nevermind that tomatoes contain a lot of fructose.
What's this about HFCS everywhere?
What? They are not the same molecules.HFCS isn't a molecule, it's two separate molecules, fructose and glucose. Sucrose is those two molecules stuck together, and they get split in your stomach pretty quickly.
Eh, I'm not calling anyone a liar. But if you can find me some credible reports of allergies to high fructose corn syrup in medical journals or whatever I'd be shocked.There is such a thing as fructose intolerance (just like lactose intolerance). But those people can't eat a lot of fruit either.
That does not mean the health outcomes of eating a piece of fruit with 1 gram of fructose in it, and consuming 1 g of table sugar/ HFCS is the same. Because it is not.[citation needed]
Fructose in fruit is bound in a matrix, and fruit has other nutrients and chemicals in it, and it has fiber. ... First the matrix. By being bound in the cellular matrix it makes the body work to extract the fructose - that takes enzymes to break the matrixAgain [citation needed]. Where's the evidence that a 'fruit matrix' makes sugar take longer to get absorbed?
I've posted them before, and you should also do your own research). Anyone interested - I urge you to do your own research, don't rely on anonymous posters claims (including mine) for your nutritional advice.
"I don't understand the difference between the molecules but they don't sound that different the way they're described on wikipedia and I can't imagine what the difference between the metabolic pathways which I know nothing about could possibly be therefore they must be the same and it's idiotic to say otherwise".Of course, it's apparently too much work for you to bother with trying to explain what you think the difference. Also, saying "There is no real difference between X and Y" is not the same thing as saying "I don't know the difference between X and Y". My point is that I've never seen any credible research showing a difference between them. Maybe you have? by all means feel free to post a link.
Delmoi, see above article about mercury in HFCS.How does that mercury level compare to other food additives? Cane sugar undergoes a lot of processing and refinement as well. Lots of fish products contain some mercury, for example. Anyway, the majority of the samples were clean, and obviously that should be fixed.
Claiming a scientific equivalence between HFCS and naturally occurring sugars inside fruits and vegetables is laughable.Whether it makes you laugh or not has no baring on whether or not it's true.
What is the rational basis for claiming equivalence between HFCS and the sweetness of an apple? That is, a sugar occurring within a naturally grown foodstuff, like an apple?Yeah... that's just straight up crazy talk. Not really worth a response. I don't care about the epistemology of "naturalness" and "purity". Sucrose, when it's added to pop is still heavily processed.
To make that claim is to set oneself outside of reason! It is utter hogwash and an abuse of Science.
Because the composition of HFCS and sucrose are so similar, particularly on absorption by the body, it appears unlikely that HFCS contributes more to obesity or other conditions than sucrose. Nevertheless, few studies have evaluated the potentially differential effect of various sweeteners, particularly as they relate to health conditions such as obesity, which develop over relatively long periods of time. Improved nutrient databases are needed to analyze food consumption in epidemiological studies, as are more strongly designed experimental studies. At the present time, there is insufficient evidence to restrict use of HFCS or other fructose-containing sweeteners in the food supply or to require the use of warning labels on products containing HFCS.So hey "the composition of HFCS and sucrose are so similar, particularly on absorption by the body". I guess the AMA is just arguing from ignorance!
« Older Civil Rights Photographer Unmasked as Informer.... | The Gregory Brothers auto-tune... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by mokeydraws at 9:43 AM on September 14, 2010