Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

High fructose corn syrup rebranded as 'corn sugar'

huffingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 90 posts

Re: High fructose corn syrup rebranded as 'corn sugar'

#71

Post by m0nastic »

dangrossman wrote: post #60
m0nastic wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We avoid it because my girlfriend is allergic to it; which seriously limits what foods we can buy from the store.

I don't understand how that's even possible. Is she also allergic to all fruit and most vegetables?

Yeah, I don't know how it works. She's actually also allergic to Canola oil, so she's basically a walking litmus test for packaged foods.

She's not allergic to any fruit, but is allergic to potatoes and onions (which made bringing her home to meet my Irish family an interesting experience). Oh, and beef and dairy.

Re: High fructose corn syrup rebranded as 'corn sugar'

#72

Post by RK »

MartinCron wrote: post #18

The grammar geek in me likes the parallel construction between "corn sugar" and "cane sugar". No matter what they call it, I will still prefer the taste of my imported Mexican Coke made with cane sugar.

I seem to be the only one on the Internet that likes Coke better with high fructose corn syrup than sugar. I will say that most of the "sugar" coke I've had is from Europe, rather than the Mexican coke (which seems to have a label listing "sugar and/or high fructose corn syrup"). I would describe the corn syrup coke as smoother.

Re: High fructose corn syrup rebranded as 'corn sugar'

#73

Post by tokenadult »

Goladus wrote: post #14
tptacek wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're rebranding it to "sugar". Good for them. Sugar is the problem . Singling out HFCS actually does everyone a disservice, by making them think that if they just seek out "HFCS-free" foods they'll be fine. No they won't.

I thought this too, until I read this: http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S26/91/22K07/ 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.

Earlier HN thread:

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1629082

Re: High fructose corn syrup rebranded as 'corn sugar'

#74

Post by rubashov »

tptacek wrote: post #6
ajscherer wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I agree with you about HFCS, it does strike me as slimy to rename a product in order to trick people specifically trying to avoid that product into continuing to consume it.

They're rebranding it to "sugar". Good for them. Sugar is the problem . Singling out HFCS actually does everyone a disservice, by making them think that if they just seek out "HFCS-free" foods they'll be fine. No they won't.

What's even more interesting is that zero calorie sweeteners are just as bad, stevia or other-such. They still produce weight gain. Simply tasting sweet produces insulin spikes.

Re: High fructose corn syrup rebranded as 'corn sugar'

#75

Post by potatolicious »

blackguardx wrote: post #70
araneae wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It doesn't belong in my chocolate, therefore I refuse to eat it, and refuse to purchase foods with PGPR You're weird. Chocolate originally comes in bean form; some brilliant South Americans got the idea to grind it up with sugar and water and drink it. Chocolate in solid form is a pretty damn new idea and hardly even counts as a food; it's a pretty weird concoction to be a "purist" about. Where does your platonic id…

It's called a preference, dude. Having a preference doesn't make you weird. I happen to prefer chocolate bars with over 75% cocoa content. It is just what I prefer. Blindly consuming anything put in front of you is weird. Also, chocolate as a drink originated in Mexico and they didn't mix sugar with it. They mixed ground chili peppers.

I don't think he's denying your right to have a preference - that being said, avoiding things with a rational reason seems mighty weird to me.

So you prefer chocolate bars with >75% Cocoa, I can get that - so do I. I like the taste of pure dark chocolate more than the taste of milk chocolate, say.

So, if you were avoiding HFCS for health reasons, or taste reasons, I totally get that. But "I just dont' want it in my food, mmm'kay?" seems weird to me.

> "Blindly consuming anything put in front of you is weird."

Oh come on, now you're just taking this personally and getting rude. At no point did previous poster suggest that either you or him "blindly consume" anything put in front of you.

Re: High fructose corn syrup rebranded as 'corn sugar'

#76

Post by zbanks »

nopassrecover wrote: post #31
gruseom wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, you know what, I bet that's exactly why they picked the name. "Corn syrup" and "cane sugar" are comfortable and familiar. What could fit in with those better than "corn sugar"? One has to make a cognitive effort to distinguish them, and people don't make that kind of cognitive effort very often. This is brilliant marketing. The tobacco industry must be green with envy.

Just like distinguishing baking soda from baking powder.

Baking soda = sodium bicarbonate = a base

Baking powder = a base + a (dry) acid (+ an anti-caking agent)

Baking soda lowers acidity of foods. Baking powder, however, will create air bubbles whenever exposed to moisture. ("Double-acting" versions create a second wave of bubbles after being heated to around 150F. This is actually kind of a Big Deal.)

Re: High fructose corn syrup rebranded as 'corn sugar'

#77

Post by blackguardx »

potatolicious wrote: post #75
blackguardx wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's called a preference, dude. Having a preference doesn't make you weird. I happen to prefer chocolate bars with over 75% cocoa content. It is just what I prefer. Blindly consuming anything put in front of you is weird. Also, chocolate as a drink originated in Mexico and they didn't mix sugar with it. They mixed ground chili peppers.

I don't think he's denying your right to have a preference - that being said, avoiding things with a rational reason seems mighty weird to me. So you prefer chocolate bars with >75% Cocoa, I can get that - so do I. I like the taste of pure dark chocolate more than the taste of milk chocolate, say. So, if you were avoiding HFCS for health reasons, or taste reasons, I totally get that. But "I just dont' want it in my f…

Rude? I'm not sure I follow you.

My point is that the opposite of having preferences is just consuming everything. It is just as "weird" as having very distinct preferences.

I also think it is rude to call someone weird but maybe I am alone in this.

Re: High fructose corn syrup rebranded as 'corn sugar'

#78

Post by tptacek »

tokenadult wrote: post #73
Goladus wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought this too, until I read this: http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S26/91/22K07/ 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.

Earlier HN thread: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1629082

From the article in that thread:

In fact, sucrose — even “natural” cane sugar — is 50% fructose once it is digested and absorbed. While this is 20% less than the fructose content of HFCS 55, food manufacturers need to use less (about 20% less) HFCS 55 to get the same sweetness, so it’s a wash as far as fructose content.

Re: High fructose corn syrup rebranded as 'corn sugar'

#79

Post by araneae »

Tangurena wrote: post #50
araneae wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It doesn't belong in my chocolate, therefore I refuse to eat it, and refuse to purchase foods with PGPR You're weird. Chocolate originally comes in bean form; some brilliant South Americans got the idea to grind it up with sugar and water and drink it. Chocolate in solid form is a pretty damn new idea and hardly even counts as a food; it's a pretty weird concoction to be a "purist" about. Where does your platonic id…

>Where does your platonic idea of chocolate come from? Cadbury Flake.

I'm a Fruit and Nut person myself ^-^

Re: High fructose corn syrup rebranded as 'corn sugar'

#80

Post by gte910h »

tptacek wrote: post #64
gte910h wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HFCS also hits you much faster than normal sugar. All the HFCS hits you at once, the sucrose does actually take a small amount of time. While this may be difference between drinking a pint of 100 proof alcohol vs a cup of 200 proof (i.e. not much), it may prove signifigant. To me, people should have the labeling required to tell if this substance is in their food. I personally don't totally avoid it, nor do I look fo…

Can you cite a peer-reviewed source that says that HFCS "hits you much faster" than sucrose? The sources I found suggest that the two are handled almost identically once in the bloodstream.

We're talking pre-bloodstream, and the mechanism is understood science (everything does this process, it's a widely taught part of biology) It's how everything (bacteria to humans) digests all non single molecule sugars and starch (i.e. sucrose on up).

Here it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glycoside_hydrolase

It is a non-instantaneous process which is limited by the reaction catalyzed by the enzyme. Some diabetic drugs work off this enzyme by inhibiting it's function (as do some antimicrobial drugs/substances).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acarbose http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miglitol http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voglibose

So I'm going to point at the existence of drugs working off this mechanism instead of finding the research that established them.

As GH works off complex carbohydrates and HFCS is a mixtures of simple carbohydrates, it is not slowed by any inhibition of the GH reaction in the stomach.

As my comment said: While this may be difference between drinking a pint of 100 proof alcohol vs a cup of 200 proof (i.e. not much), it may prove significant.

It appears to effect rats differently at least for instance: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi...

Post reply on HN