"Cornsugar" ads

[yellowwood]

Have you been seeing "cornsugar" television ads? This is a rebranding effort by the corporate corn refiners to make high fructose cornsyrup more acceptable.

"The real problem, says Ellis, is that HFCS is cheaper to produce than sugar, and therefore pumped into all sorts of over-processed, high-calorie foods as filler. These foods --which have been proven to cause obesity -- then look more attractive to consumers due to their low prices. Thus supporting the manufacturers of HFCS is a vote of confidence for cheap, unhealthy food, grown by people who are paid by the government to produce acres of empty calories instead of produce, he says. "We're rewarding farmers who grow the ingredients to make it, yet we don't even produce enough fresh fruits and vegetables to satisfy the recommended daily amounts for our population," he says. "If the corn syrup industry really thinks we don't have anything to 'worry about,' they might've ended their commercial with a trip to the drive-through instead of a wholesome home-cooked meal where little of their trademark product is likely to be consumed."
http://www.fastcodesign.com/1662298/the-sticky-tricky-rebranding-of-corn-syrup-as-corn-sugar+

[handmade34]

1. seriously bad stuff...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

"...The fructose component of sugar and H.F.C.S. is metabolized primarily by the liver, while the glucose from sugar and starches is metabolized by every cell in the body. Consuming sugar (fructose and glucose) means more work for the liver than if you consumed the same number of calories of starch (glucose). And if you take that sugar in liquid form — soda or fruit juices — the fructose and glucose will hit the liver more quickly than if you consume them, say, in an apple (or several apples, to get what researchers would call the equivalent dose of sugar). The speed with which the liver has to do its work will also affect how it metabolizes the fructose and glucose.

In animals, or at least in laboratory rats and mice, it’s clear that if the fructose hits the liver in sufficient quantity and with sufficient speed, the liver will convert much of it to fat. This apparently induces a condition known as insulin resistance, which is now considered the fundamental problem in obesity, and the underlying defect in heart disease and in the type of diabetes, type 2, that is common to obese and overweight individuals. It might also be the underlying defect in many cancers... But some researchers will make the case, as Cantley and Thompson do, that if something other than just being fatter is causing insulin resistance to begin with, that’s quite likely the dietary cause of many cancers. If it’s sugar that causes insulin resistance, they say, then the conclusion is hard to avoid that sugar causes cancer — some cancers, at least — radical as this may seem and despite the fact that this suggestion has rarely if ever been voiced before publicly. For just this reason, neither of these men will eat sugar or high-fructose corn syrup, if they can avoid it. Cantley put it this way: “Sugar scares me.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17Sugar-t.html?pagewanted=all

[LWolf]

5. So....

The "sugar is sugar" and "your body can't tell the difference"...

blatant lies.

[jeff47]

8. Actually, all those fearmongering claims apply to both sugar and HFCS

The people making those claims do not differentiate between sugar and HFCS...in fact their claims rely on the body not being able to tell the difference.

[LWolf]

11. So...is it true, or not,

that the body metabolizes HFCS differently?

[jeff47]

18. It is different at exactly one point, which isn't relevant to the problems they are describing

Sucrose (aka sugar) is a fructose and glucose chemically bonded together. That bond is broken very early in the digestion of food. By the time the sucrose-containing food leaves your stomach, the sucrose has been broken down into fructose and glucose. Since no food enters your bloodstream directly from the stomach, that difference doesn't matter.

The fructose and glucose then enter your intestines, and from there enter your bloodstream. The intestines have no way of knowing if the glucose/fructose mixture came from sugar or HFCS. Nor does the rest of your body as it consumes the fructose and glucose.

The 'bad' blamed on HFCS is because of its calories and the flood of fructose and glucose. The same 'bad' would happen if equivalent quantities of sucrose were consumed in the place of HFCS, because it has the same calories and provides the same flood of fructose and glucose.

[Defectata]

24. HFCS has been shown to cause increased production

of insulin, higher than an equivalent dose of glucose, and has been therefore posited to cause increased insulin resistance.

[jeff47]

29. You can not make an equivalent dose of glucose.

HFCS is a mixture of glucose and fructose. Because it contains glucose, you can't give 500ml of HFCS and call it equivalent to 500ml of glucose. Nor can you give 250ml of glucose and 500ml of HFCS (50% glucose) and call it equivalent because HFCS has fructose too.

HFCS is comparable to sucrose, which is what would be labeled "sugar" on food. If HFCS was banned, food products would contain sucrose instead. And they'd still cause the same problems.

It's overconsumption of _all_ sugars that's the problem. Not HFCS in particular. Removing HFCS doesn't fix the problem.

[fishwax]

47. But don't HFCS products usually have more sugar than cane sugar products?

I get what you're saying about overconsumption of sugar in general being the problem, but I think that the amount of sugar in foods has increased since HFCS has taken over. Is it possible that it takes a higher sugar content when made with HFCS in order to get the same level of sweetness in the flavor?

I don't have any hard evidence that sugar levels have increased, other than memory (which of course is cloudy).

However, I do know that a can of "Throwback" Pepsi (made with cane sugar) has fewer grams of sugar than a can of regular Pepsi. Ditto for throwback Mountain Dew vs. Mountain Dew and Sierra Mist "Natural" vs. regular Sierra Mist. The difference is about 5%--not a huge amount in a single can of soda, but it could add up. So would the same hold true for other products sweetened with HFCS?

[iris27]

48. "Corn sugar" IS hfcs...that's the name they're trying to rebrand it to.

You are thinking of cane sugar or beet sugar; these are sucrose and not HFCS. "Throwback" sodas are made with cane sugar.

[fishwax]

51. yep--that's what I meant

thanks. :hi:

[jeff47]

49. I'm gonna assume you meant "cane sugar", since HFCS is trying to be labeled "corn sugar"

And no. The same product, when made outside the US, is made with equivalent sucrose in place of HFCS.

"Is it possible that it takes a higher sugar content when made with HFCS in order to get the same level of sweetness in the flavor?"

Theoretically, we could. Since sucrose is one molecule and HFCS is two, we could theoretically taste them differently. However, taste tests don't bear this out. Most people who claim to taste HFCS fail to do so in properly controlled blind taste tests. Give them two to pick from, and they will select one as the HFCS version and one as the sugar version. Even when they're both HFCS or sugar.

As for sugar levels increasing, they have. But outside the US they've increased sucrose, and inside the US they've increased HFCS.

Increasing sugar content, at least in colas, is an arms race that started when Pepsi put out all those commercials of people preferring Pepsi over Coke in their 'taste tests'. Pepsi has always had more sugar than Coke, and in a poorly-controlled taste test, people will tend to pick the sweeter cola. Those commercials over a couple decades got enough people to switch to Pepsi that Coke introduced a sweeter cola as "New Coke" to combat it. After that failed, Coke gradually increased the sugar/HFCS in Coke, and Pepsi did the same to keep ahead.

The "throwbacks" taste different not because of the sucrose, but because the manufacturers have changed their formulas that much over the years. The real reason we didn't have the same problems from sodas before HFCS is they weren't consumed in the same quantities. A Coke was 8 ounces. Same size as the itty-bitty cans in the supermarket today. And you had one. Maybe two. Now a large Coke from McDonalds can fill a child's pool and there's free refills.

[jeff47]

6. Beware the youtube-based scientists

"the same number of calories of starch (glucose)"

Wrong. Starch isn't glucose. Corn syrup is glucose (the non "high-fructose" kind).

"the fructose and glucose will hit the liver more quickly than if you consume them, say, in an apple"

Wrong. Apples have fructose, but not glucose.

"This apparently induces a condition known as insulin resistance, which is now considered the fundamental problem in obesity, and the underlying defect in heart disease and in the type of diabetes, type 2, that is common to obese and overweight individuals."

4 wrongs in this one.

-The mechanism that creates insulin resistance is not known. It is assumed to be exposure to high sugar, because the people with it eat a lot of sugar. But they also eat a lot, period. Assuming it's sugar is as smart as assuming vaccines cause autism.

-Insulin resistance doesn't create heart disease. People who tend to be sedentary and overweight develop both conditions. But people also develop each condition independently.

-Insulin resistance is type 2 diabetes. Claiming insulin resistance causes diabetes is wrong.

-The fundamental problem in obesity is not insulin resistance. It's overconsumption of food and sedentary lifestyle. In many people, reducing their food intake and exercising "cures" them of insulin resistance (their sugars are not as good as someone who never had it, but they fall below the levels that are considered a problem)

"It might also be the underlying defect in many cancers"

Wrong. Even Cantley and Thompson's paper does not support this. Cantley and Thompson's paper is about the metabolism of cancer cells. Cancer cells, just like every other cell, consume sugar. They do it in an odd way, which Cantley and Thompson were trying to explain. But the cells were already cancerous. Sugar didn't make them cancerous.

[laundry_queen]

14. Beware the DU scientists

The fructose in Apples is metabolized more slowly because of the fiber and pectin in the apple, therefore the 'you tube scientists' claim is factual.

Also, insulin resistance is NOT type 2 diabetes. It is a precursor, on a diabetes continuum if you will, but just because you have insulin resistance does not mean you have type 2 diabetes. It means you are at very high risk of developing type 2 diabetes sometime in the future. You must have elevated blood glucose levels on at least 2 blood draws on a glucose challenge to get a diabetes diagnosis. Just because you have insulin resistance doesn't mean you have high blood glucose levels. Many people have the ability to over-produce insulin to compensate for the resistance. This, of course, means added body fat and hunger due to the function of insulin in excess.

People with insulin resistance have it from an early age. I had symptoms of it (and PCOS) when I was 12, despite having parents who did not allow junk food and fed us extremely healthily with tons of vegetables and made us exercise constantly. It is *exacerbated* by eating too much but it is thought that the underlying defect is genetic. It is not simply caused by eating too much. The underlying predisposition must already be there.

[jeff47]

20. See, the difference is I'm actually pointing out errors in what they said.

"The fructose in Apples is metabolized more slowly because of the fiber and pectin in the apple, therefore the 'you tube scientists' claim is factual."

Not the claim that was made in the post, nor what I was correcting.

"You must have elevated blood glucose levels on at least 2 blood draws on a glucose challenge to get a diabetes diagnosis. Just because you have insulin resistance doesn't mean you have high blood glucose levels"

Insulin resistance is diagnosed via high blood glucose levels. There isn't any other way to tell you have insulin resistance. The reason we don't label everyone with high blood glucose as diabetic is there's a certain amount of natural variation on how people handle glucose and we can't assume it's actually an insulin problem until it gets above a certain level.

"Many people have the ability to over-produce insulin to compensate for the resistance. This, of course, means added body fat and hunger due to the function of insulin in excess."

Think about it for a moment - the person with insulin resistance is producing more insulin so that they process glucose normally. Normally. .... normally. Insulin resistance itself is not what causes added body fat. And they are no more 'hungry' than anyone else going through a sugar crash. They have to make more insulin for their body to respond, but that doesn't mean they over-respond.

"People with insulin resistance have it from an early age"

Then it's utterly irrelevant to HFCS and the OP is still wrong.

The problem with your theory is that people without insulin resistance develop it, and then get diagnosed with type-2 diabetes.

The reality is there's a small number of people with a genetic issue. But they aren't relevant to a discussion of various sugars causing insulin resistance, because their resistance wasn't caused by sugars.

[laundry_queen]

41. Insulin resistance is NOT diagnosed via high blood glucose levels.

Diabetes *is* and it's NOT the same thing. There are many different ways to diagnose insulin resistance and here is a study that shows what works best:

"The variables that best predicted insulin sensitivity were fasting insulin and fasting triglycerides."

http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/24/3/460.full

Insulin resistance causes the body to produce excess insulin which, in turn, causes the body to store more fat. It's well documented excess insulin leads to excess fat storage, even if glucose normals are level. And yes, excess insulin can cause hunger, hunger is not simply tied to blood glucose levels. Excess insulin is what causes the ovaries to release abnormal amounts of hormone, thus Polycystic Ovarian syndrome. Even in normoglycemic people. It's the insulin, NOT blood glucose levels that trigger those changes.

And it IS relevant to HFCS because those with insulin resistance are far more susceptible to the negative effects of HFCS. Fructose for some years was touted as a sugar substitute for diabetics until they realized it actually caused MORE harm than plain cane sugar did in diabetics.



BTW, it's not "MY" theory. Zillions of studies out there. Well known fact amount us PCOS'ers and most endocrinologists.

Also, not a 'small' number of people. 5-10% of women have PCOS, and all of those have insulin resistance. It's estimated a similar amount of men are also insulin resistant. That's a large number of people, and a large amount of health care dollars. And it is relevant to the argument that HFCS causes insulin resistance. Here's an example. If I, someone who has a genetic predisposition to insulin resistance, didn't have any sugars in my diet, and no refined carbs from the time I was a baby, then I'd probably not be obese or insulin resistant. However, let's say my clone eats a diet that has cane sugar and refined carbs included in it. My clone will be more likely to gain weight and become insulin resistant. Now let's say Clone #2 eats the same diet as Clone #1, however instead of cane sugar, HFCS is substituted instead. Because of the way HFCS is metabolized, Clone #2 will be even heavier, and have even more insulin resistance than Clone #1. THIS IS WHY and HOW HFCS is related to insulin resistance and type 2 diabetes. It's being introduced far to early and in far to large amounts to our children. That shit is in everything. Therefore, where previously people who only had a MILD predisposition may have been okay with cane sugar, they begin to have a problem when HFCS is introduced. Remember, everything is on a continuum. So in a sense, HFCS is CAUSING us to see more people with insulin resistance than ever before. And THAT is how it is relevant.

[jeff47]

46. You are still confusing fructose with HFCS

You continue to confuse fructose metabolism with HFCS metabolism. They're not the same thing. Fructose metabolism is a component of HFCS metabolism...but there's still the glucose in HFCS. Sucrose metabolism includes the same fructose metabolism at about the same ratio.

No peer-reviewed study I am aware of has demonstrated a difference between HFCS and sucrose. The studies I've been shown by anti-HFCS people compared HFCS to glucose. Or fructose to glucose. Wrong molecules. As useful in this discussion as comparing HFCS to plutonium.

Look, my entire point is a high sugar diet, no matter what the sugar source, is bad. Sweeten the hell out of everything with HFCS or sucrose and you get the same problems. Because what reaches your intestines is 50% glucose, 50% fructose, and that's what enters your blood stream. Your body has no way to know that glucose/fructose mixture came from HFCS instead of sucrose.

[Defectata]

25. insulin is also a growth hormone for fat cells

that triggers fat cells to uptake glucose from the bloodstream, and therefore reduce the possibility of glucose oxidation to generate free radicals.

[jeff47]

32. Yes, and insulin resistance, aka type 2 diabetes, interferes with that.

And glucose oxidation doesn't produce free radicals. A 'free radical' is an atom with one empty electron orbit in the outer shell of electrons. In biological systems, there's only one atom that can do that and is around in any significant concentration, oxygen. However, the oxygen molecules in glycolysis have either full outer shells or empty outer shells. There's no free radicals produced. When makeup companies and health gurus warn about free radicals, they're talking about free radicals from the environment. Not ones produced by the body. Because our bodies don't do that.

I'm aware of only one biological process that produces significant quantities of free radicals, and that's chlorophyll-based photosynthesis. It produces significant quantities of peroxide, which does contain an oxygen free radical. Plants evolved special enzymes and structures to deal with the free radicals before they cause damage.

[Defectata]

35. tissue damage caused by diabetes

is a direct result of redox reactions occuring on excess glucose in the blood.

[jeff47]

44. "Redox" reactions do not involve free radicals.

Redox is a method of figuring out the balance between reactants and products in a chemical reaction. It is literally "Reduction-Oxidation". In normal chemistry, one product is reduced, and the other is oxidized. Where the equilibrium lies in the reaction will depend on the oxidation and reduction potentials of the ingredients.

Free radicals can oxidize stuff, but that doesn't mean all oxidation involves free radicals. Just like all humans are mammals, but not all mammals are humans.

[Defectata]

36. you do realize that glucose has a lot of oxygen atoms in it

right?

[jeff47]

43. You do realize I already covered that, right?

Here, lemme quote myself. Maybe you'll read it this time.

"However, the oxygen molecules in glycolysis have either full outer shells or empty outer shells. There's no free radicals produced."

[Taverner]

38. How about HFCS just tastes like shit?

[jeff47]

45. Perfectly acceptable reason to avoid it.

But I recommend avoiding highly-sweetened foods, no matter what the sweetener.

[themadstork]

7. This is what kills me

I can't believe that they can simply say "sugar is sugar" when fructose and gluclose are metabolized in separate ways. I know this doesn't have a big practical difference for most people, but it's just so icky. . .

[jeff47]

9. They say that because sugar isn't glucose.

Sucrose (sugar) is a glucose bonded to a fructose. Your body very quickly breaks that bond and you digest 50% glucose and 50% fructose.

HFCS is a mixture of roughly 50% glucose and 50% fructose. Corn syrup is 100% glucose, the fructose in HFCS was created chemically from the glucose. Many assert there is something evil that comes from that chemical process, but their claims have yet to be proven. So far, all the "bad" from overconsumption of HFCS also comes from overconsuption of sugar.

[Defectata]

26. HFCS can have up to 95% fructose

[jeff47]

30. HFCS can have whatever ratio they'd like. But the stuff used in food...

...is between 40 and 55% fructose.

[Taverner]

37. I just don't like the fricken taste of HFCS

I realize some argue its worse than table sugar, some argue its the same

But when it comes down to it, to get the same amount of sweetness you have to use more.

And HFCS tastes, well, flavorless.

Do this little test:

Get 1 Mexican Coke and 1 American Coke

Pour them into glasses, and drink the American one first, then the Mexican one, then the American one again

You'll notice the second time drinking the American one it will taste unsweetened.

[yawnmaster]

56. starch is not glucose. suspect any authority writing ..."starch (glucose)" eom

[handmade34]

57. but glucose can be starch

Everything with a grain of salt (figuratively)


"Starch is a polymer made by plants to store energy.

...plants need energy to grow...
They use energy from sunlight to make a simple sugar, glucose.
Plants make polymers - starch - out of extra glucose..."



Starch for Kids
http://pslc.ws/macrog/kidsmac/starch.htm

[ananda]

2. I avoid anything corn.

And high fructose corn syrup is a serious avoid. It causes diabetes.

[closeupready]

54. Me, too.

nt

[GoCubsGo]

3. Yes, but I have also noticed this crap being removed from various foods.

I was reading the labels on peanut butter the other day. Most brands used to load it up with HFCS. They are now using molasses or cane sugar. (I prefer no sweeteners in my peanut butter.) They seem to be taking it out of other products, as well.

[mrs_p]

4. As a scientist, I understand what they are saying, but...

they put so much of that crap in EVERYTHING processed. I am against using that much sugar in general, unless it is something I am making like cookies, pies, cakes, etc, which is a rare treat. The corn industry is so disingenuous. Like all corps in the USA, it's all about money - screw the consequences like obesity and diabetes.

[valerief]

10. I hate those ads, too. HFCS is not "plain old" sugar. It's a foodstuff. Cane sugar is a food

(of sorts).

[Bryn]

12. I avoid HFCS like a plague because of my allergy to it

I started to suffer from post nasal drip, sinus infection, eye watering in early 1990. Years later it was finally pinpointed to HFCS as being cause of it. Once I eliminated it, my allergy problem went away. It returns if I touch HFCS. This goes for anything corn if it's GMO corn. Organic corn is fine. What a pain to have to read before buying.

[jtown1123]

13. HFCS, Cane sugar, sugar, ALL BAD. I think it's funny they think comparing it to sugar helps n/t

[RC]

15. High-fructose corn syrup

Cane and beet sugar

Cane sugar and beet sugar are both relatively pure sucrose. While glucose and fructose, which are the two components of HFCS, are monosaccharides, sucrose is a disaccharide composed of glucose and fructose linked together with a relatively weak glycosidic bond. The fact that sucrose, glucose and fructose are unique, distinct molecules complicates the comparison between cane sugar, beet sugar and HFCS. A molecule of sucrose (with a chemical formula of C12H22O11) can be broken down into a molecule of glucose (C6H12O6) plus a molecule of fructose (also C6H12O6 — an isomer of glucose) in a weakly acidic environment by a process called inversion.<19> Sucrose is broken down during digestion into a mixture of 50% fructose and 50% glucose through hydrolysis by the enzyme sucrase. People with sucrase deficiency cannot digest (break down) sucrose and thus exhibit sucrose intolerance.<20>

Fructose is absorbed from the gastrointestinal tract by a different mechanism than that for glucose. Glucose stimulates insulin release from the isolated pancreas, but fructose does not. Fructose is metabolized primarily in the liver. Once inside the liver cell, fructose can enter the pathways that provide glycerol, the backbone for triacylglycerol. The growing dietary amount of fructose that is derived from sucrose or HFCS has raised questions about how children and adults respond to fructose alone or when it is accompanied by glucose.<21>
Honey

Honey is a mixture of different types of sugars, water, and small amounts of other compounds. Honey typically has a fructose/glucose ratio similar to HFCS 55, as well as containing some sucrose and other sugars. Like HFCS, honey contains water and has approximately 3 kcal per gram. Because of its similar sugar profile and lower price, HFCS has been used illegally to "stretch" honey. As a result, checks for adulteration of honey no longer test for higher-than-normal levels of sucrose, which HFCS does not contain, but instead test for small quantities of proteins that can be used to differentiate between HFCS and honey.<22>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-fructose_corn_syrup

---

The underlined is the key to the problem.
When eating fruit, there are other compounds in the fruit that temper the effects Fructose that are not present in HFCS.
What this boils down to is it is the Fructose in HFCS that is the problem because there is nothing to temper it.
For starts how much roughage in foods that have been fortitude with HFCS?
What of the compounds found in fruit that are missing in HFCS enhanced foods?
Fructose is the problem and needs to be dealt with.
Our current obesity problem can be traced back to within months in of when it first marketed in 1967. What happened then? HFCS was introduced into our diet. That is a fact.

[Greybnk48]

16. Excellent. Thanks RC!

I think the other relevant point in the article the OP posted is that unlike cane sugar, HFCS is put in virtually everything as a cheap filler. Something you allude to in your last couple of sentences.

And it's true. There were very, very few obese people around in 1967. My Dad was an overweight man and we had to actually travel to find him clothes. In today's market, he'd wear a 2x shirt which can be found anywhere.

[mrs_p]

17. From what we learned in vet physiology

is that glucose and fructose use different transporters, but the mechanism of metabolism is pretty much the same. Now, this was for absorption by intestinal cells. I honestly don't remember ever hearing about liver cells having the transporters necessary for fructose absorption, but, I do not specialize in gastroenterology either. we learned the general mechanisms.

For me, it is the sheer volume of corn syrup they put in everything. That much sugar, no matter the biochem molecule, just can't be good for us.

[jeff47]

23. That would matter if sugar and HFCS were composed of different molecules

Sucrose is 50% glucose, 50% fructose with a chemical bond holding them together. That bond is broken in the stomach, so it's a 50% glucose/50% fructose mixture that hits the intestines.

HFCS is about 50% glucose, 50% fructose (there's different ratios available, but they're close to 50%). What makes it "high fructose" is corn syrup is 100% glucose.

So the difference between fructose metabolism and glucose metabolism doesn't say anything about HFCS vs sucrose. That's the basis of people claiming HFCS and sucrose are equivalent.

Your last 2 sentences is the actual problem. It's not HFCS, it's too much sugars in general. But lots of people are looking for an easy fix, so they blame HFCS.

[mrs_p]

28. thanks

makes sense...

[jeff47]

22. You're not quite understanding how metabolism works.

HFCS is about 50% glucose, 50% fructose.
Sucrose is 50% glucose, 50% fructose.

By the time sucrose exits your stomach, it has been broken down into fructose and glucose. No food is absorbed into your bloodstream until the intestines, and they have no way to tell if the glucose/fructose mixture came from HFCS or sucrose. Neither does your liver or all the rest of your cells.

Meaning whether you eat a ton of HFCS or a ton of sucrose, you're going to have the same problems. The solution is don't eat a ton of sweetened food, no matter what the sweetener.

The reason fruit doesn't cause the same problems that HFCS and sucrose do is the fruit contains fiber and other compounds that slow digestion and absorption of the food. So you don't get the rush of glucose and fructose that leads to problems. That's why fruit juice causes the same problems that sweetened beverages cause - the fiber isn't there.

Fructose itself isn't a problem. It's very large quantities of fructose and glucose that are the problem. Whether those came from sucrose or HFCS doesn't matter.

"Our current obesity problem can be traced back to within months in of when it first marketed in 1967. What happened then? HFCS was introduced into our diet. That is a fact."

Um...no. You can't consume enough HFCS (or sucrose) to go from perfectly healthy to obese in months.

[Laluchacontinua]

33. The only "compounds" in fruits that "temper the effects (of) fructose" = various kinds of fiber.

Anything that slows absorption/digestion (= fiber, fat, protein) will "temper" (slow) the absorption & digestion of any kind of sugar eaten with them.

Every developed country (and lots of underdeveloped ones) has experienced increases in average weight, even those where HFCS isn't ubiquitous.

[Romulox]

19. HFCS **ISN'T** cheaper to produce than sugar; it's just massively subsidized by our government. nt

[Laluchacontinua]

34. +1. Not to mention sugar producers' quasi-monopolies. Which also keep prices high.

[handmade34]

40. precisely!!

a disaster in the making

[Mimosa]

21. Manufacturers are lobbying FDA so they can call HFCS 'corn sugar' on food labels. n/t

[edhopper]

27. Let's put aside the biology to deal with this

"The real problem, says Ellis, is that HFCS is cheaper to produce than sugar, and therefore pumped into all sorts of over-processed, high-calorie foods as filler. These foods --which have been proven to cause obesity -- then look more attractive to consumers due to their low prices. "

HFCS finds it's way into so many more food than sugar ever did. it is a low cost filler adding empty calories. It is a major cause of obesity here because people consume so much more in fast and processed foods. It is one of the big reasons McDonalds was able to supersize everything from soda to fries, all have HFCS.
I avoid it in any food I can, and hope the FDA does not allow them to change the name on labels.

[jeff47]

31. HFCS actually costs more than sugar

Corn subsidies make it "cheaper" in the US. That's why the rest of the world uses sucrose instead.

And replacing all the HFCS with sucrose doesn't fix the problem. It's overconsumption of _all_ sugars, not HFCS.

[edhopper]

39. It is cheaper than sugar here

because of the subsidies. It is put in many foods that previously did not have sugar. Breads, cans of vegetables, frozen foods, it is a big list. So for the last 3 decades people have eaten a lot more HFCS than they did sugar before. HFCS is one of the main causes of the over consumption.

[jeff47]

42. Bread has always had sugar

Leavened bread needs something to feed the yeast, or you have to let it rise for a very long time. Ancient peoples used sweeteners like honey and fruit extracts. Once it was available, sugar was used. Today, HFCS.

Also, you have to have some sort of sugar for the Maillard reaction that makes bread and toast brown. No sugar, no crust.

In frozen foods and vegetables, sugar is used for it's hydroscopic properties. It draws water out of food. Thawing food and canned food benefit some from sugar drawing water out of the food...plus people like the taste better since it's sweeter. Sugar was used in those products before HFCS came around. And sugar is plenty cheap to fill the same role as HFCS. That's why the people making processed food aren't backing the "HFCS is just like sugar!" campaign...they don't care.

[edhopper]

52. Then why has the bread I have been buying for years

NOT list sugar in the ingredients? Why when I buy a can of diced Tomatoes I look at the various brands to find some with HFCS and others (which I buy) with NO sugar? Why can I go to Trader Joes and buy frozen products without HFCS or sugar?
And why do I see HFCS listed farther up the list, which means it is a bigger ingredient, than those product that do have a little sugar.
You are simply wrong to thing HFCS has simply replaced sugar in the same amounts in the food supply here.
Not saying the over consumption of su8gar is not a problem. But HFCS has been put into more foods and at a higher level than sugar ever was. It is a big problem as well.

[jeff47]

53. Because it's not required.

I never said you can't get canned veggies without sugar. But they've been adding sugar for longer than HFCS has existed.

Since I'm not the one buying your bread, I can't specifically answer. If it has no significant crust, and doesn't brown very well when toasted (pale for a long time and then suddenly brown, for example), then it doesn't need sugar. They could leaven it using some of the previous batch's dough, which means they don't need sugar for the yeast - the starch from the old dough has been broken down to sugar. Also, some other ingredient could be providing the sugar such as honey. But most people want more crust and a golden-brown toast, and cheap so it must rise quickly in the bakery. That takes some form of sugar.

"And why do I see HFCS listed farther up the list, which means it is a bigger ingredient, than those product that do have a little sugar."
Because they have more sugar or HFCS. Increasing sugar/HFCS changes the chemical reactions that produce the food, changing the character of the food. The company making the food can dump more or less sugar into it based on how they want the final product to turn out.

"You are simply wrong to thing HFCS has simply replaced sugar in the same amounts in the food supply here."
Increased sugar content is not due to HFCS. Sucrose content has been increasing outside the US. Sweeter food lets you use cheaper ingredients. So cheap food is heavily sweetened with whatever sweetener is inexpensive. In the US, that's HFCS due to corn subsidies. Ban HFCS and they'll put in equivalent amounts of sucrose.

[The Backlash Cometh]

50. Despicable advertisement.

[LiberalAndProud]

55. Unintended consequences?

Corn subsidies make unhealthy food choices the rational ones
http://www.grist.org/article/food-2010-09-21-op-ed-corn-subsidies-make-unhealthy-food-choices
A big reason that food products derived from corn are so pervasive in America's diet today is that for decades taxpayers have given corn growers incentives to grow as much as possible through the skewed federal farm subsidy system. The $73.8 billion lavished on corn since 1995 has helped to churn out a host of cheap and unhealthy foods -- from chips to sugary sodas to high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS).

Hold on: Make that "corn sugar." With consumers souring on HFCS, the Corn Refiners Association has embarked on a re-branding effort, as Tom Laskawy mocked, to prop up the lagging sales of the calorie-laden sweetener that's found in nearly all cheap processed foods.

Too much of anything is not a good thing.