Live data from Hacker News

High fructose corn syrup rebranded as 'corn sugar'

huffingtonpost.com

81–90 of 90 posts

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

#81
post #53
post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The way I learned it from the nice professor in the video ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM ) was simply: fructose = bad, poison glucose = good sucrose = fructose + glucose, unsafe because the composition preserves the fructose portion HFCS = 25% fructose, not as bad as sucrose (IIRC) Mitigate fructose intake with fiber. apple juice = bad, but apple = good because of the fiber countering the effect of the…

For my learning, aside from my 25% figure being misleading, can anyone explain their disagreement with my comment? Is the video a bad source?

Sucrose in generally shown to be less harmful than HFCS in many tests, which in the alternative show at best it's only as harmful.

Here is one study: 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...

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

#82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I can't speak for the previous poster - but many people I know (including myself) take pride in being weird; after all, what is there to be proud of in simply being the same as everyone else? I doubt "weird" was meant as an insult - I certainly didn't get that tone from the previous poster.

The rudeness comment is in reference to your rather aggressive response to what I perceived as a bit of idle observation. He indicated that preference without rational reason is weird (and to be honest, I'm inclined to agree), and you responded by insinuating that he would blindly eat anything presented to him, which is clearly not the case.

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

#83
post #81
post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For my learning, aside from my 25% figure being misleading, can anyone explain their disagreement with my comment? Is the video a bad source?

Sucrose in generally shown to be less harmful than HFCS in many tests, which in the alternative show at best it's only as harmful. Here is one study: 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:…

Can you cite one human test that shows HFCS to be more harmful than sucrose? Because I'm not going to suggest that the AMA is at all the end-all of medical research (it's clearly not even close), but the AMA says "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.".

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

#84
post #83
post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sucrose in generally shown to be less harmful than HFCS in many tests, which in the alternative show at best it's only as harmful. Here is one study: 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:…

Can you cite one human test that shows HFCS to be more harmful than sucrose? Because I'm not going to suggest that the AMA is at all the end-all of medical research (it's clearly not even close), but the AMA says " 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. ".

Read the full statement. They're just saying "Don't pass laws yet, but keep studying it, preferably in an independent manner":

REPORT 3 OF THE COUNCIL ON SCIENCE AND PUBLIC HEALTH (A-08) The Health Effects of High Fructose Syrup EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Objective: To review the chemical properties and health effects of high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) in comparison to other added caloric sweeteners and to evaluate the potential impact of restricting use of fructose-containing sweeteners, including the use of warning labels on foods containing high fructose syrups. Methods: Literature searches for articles published though December 2007 were conducted in the PubMed database and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews using the search terms “high fructose corn syrup” and “high fructose syrup.” Web sites managed by federal and world health agencies, and applicable professional and advocacy organizations, were also reviewed for relevant information. Additional articles were identified by reviewing the reference lists of pertinent publications. Results: HFCS has been increasingly added to foods since its development in the late 1960s. The most commonly used types of HFCS (HFCS-42 and HFCS-55) are similar in composition to sucrose, consisting of roughly equal amounts of fructose and glucose. The primary difference is that these monosaccharides exist free in solution in HFCS, but in disaccharide form in sucrose. The disaccharide sucrose is easily cleaved in the small intestine, so free fructose and glucose are absorbed from both sucrose and HFCS. The advantage to food manufacturers is that the free monosaccharides in HFCS provide better flavor enhancement, stability, freshness, texture, color, pourability, and consistency in foods in comparison to sucrose. Concern about HFCS developed after ecological studies, using per capita estimates of HFCS consumption, found direct correlations between HFCS and obesity. In addition, human and animal studies have found direct associations between fructose and adverse health outcomes. However, the adverse health effects of HFCS, beyond those of other caloric sweeteners, most of which contain fructose, are not well established. Consumption of added caloric sweeteners in general has increased over the last 30 years, as has total calories. Likewise, rates of obesity have risen even in countries where little HFCS is consumed. Only a few small, short-term experimental studies have compared the effects of HFCS to sucrose, and most involved some form of industry support. Epidemiological studies on HFCS and health outcomes are unavailable, beyond ecological studies, because nutrient databases do not contain information on the HFCS content of foods and have only limited data on added sugars in general. Conclusions: 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. RECOMMENDATIONS The following statements, recommended by the Council on Science and Public Health, were adopted by the AMA House of Delegates as AMA directives at the 2008 Annual Meeting: 1. That our American Medical Association (AMA) recognize that at the present time, insufficient evidence exists to specifically restrict use of high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) or other fructose- containing sweeteners in the food supply or to require the use of warning labels on products containing HFCS. (Directive) 2. That our AMA encourage independent research (including epidemiological studies) on the health effects of HFCS and other sweeteners, and evaluation of the mechanism of action and relationship between fructose dose and response. (Directive) 3. That our AMA, in concert with the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, recommend that consumers limit the amount of added caloric sweeteners in their diet. (Directive)

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

#85
post #2

And? Sugar is what's bad for you. The "high fructose" in HFCS is "high" relative to other corn syrup ; table sugar breaks down into glucose and fructose during digestion. "Big Corn" is probably right, here; "HFCS" is a misleading term (for one thing, it doesn't mean anything --- different HFCS blends have wildly different amounts of fructose), and more importantly, the notion that it's just "the bad kind of sugar" th…

What bothers me more is the possible presence of mercury in HFCS, as tested by Consumer Reports: http://blogs.consumerreports.org/health/2009/01/mercury-in-h...

(Mercury is really bad for you, of course.)

Also of note: HFCS is even found in whole wheat bread at my local grocery store, which seems quite odd.

I can understand saving money by using HFCS over sugar in a sugar-laden soft drink, but the few grams of sugar needed to get the yeast going?!

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

#86
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.

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.

Yep- Zero calorie sweeteners (especially Aspartame) are much worse than HFCS or Cane Sugar.

When Aspartame breaks down it releases Methyl Alcohol (anti-freeze) into your body. It's also been shown to have a similar effect as MSG regarding brain damage.

HFCS isn't much better though. The problem is that Fructose is normally found in fruit and therefore eaten with fiber, which slows the digestion and controls the insulin spike. Fructose alone digests much faster than sucrose.

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

#87
post #66
post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a good strategy. Interestingly Blackwater changed their name to Xe to try and shake off the bad image. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackwater_Worldwide Still a nasty organization, name change or not.

The (evil) genius in the Blackwater rebranding is that they anti-SEO'd themselves by picking such an overused new name. Even if you followed the name change, searching for Xe didn't return any Blackwater-relevant results for quite awhile.

And unless people spell it out in conversation, no one would know to search for "Xe" anyway.

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

#89
post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet, assuming the mice on table sugar weren't more hyped up than those on HCFS, we still perpetuate the leaky abstraction of calories in, calories out.

While I'm also interested in the leakiness of "cals in cals out", the study in question isn't that inconsistent with the model; HFCS was obesogenic in rats, but that's a fuzzy term that in this case seems to mean in part "when fed HFCS, rats ate more."

The parent stated they ate the same amount of calories.

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

#90
post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yep- Zero calorie sweeteners (especially Aspartame) are much worse than HFCS or Cane Sugar. When Aspartame breaks down it releases Methyl Alcohol (anti-freeze) into your body. It's also been shown to have a similar effect as MSG regarding brain damage. HFCS isn't much better though. The problem is that Fructose is normally found in fruit and therefore eaten with fiber, which slows the digestion and controls the insul…

"A similar effect as MSG". That's... terrifying. I better stop eating all those tomatoes.
Post reply on HN