High-fructose corn syrup= bad

Fructose in large quantities is bad for you, in ways that other sugar is not.

The amount of fructose artificially supplied to us in drinks, sweets and other foods is tremendous compared to how much we could get from simply eating an apple or an orange. 36 grams of fructose in one single can of Coke. That's like eating four oranges in one minute. But at least the orange has tons of vitamins and fiber and other things that are very healthy for you. The can of Coke? Nothing.
 
Hercules56 said:
Fructose in large quantities is bad for you, in ways that other sugar is not.
Click to expand...
In what ways are large quantities of fructose bad for you, that large quantities of sucrose or glucose are not?

We know it's not high glycemic index, because fructose has a relatively low GI. Is it low-GI sugars that are especially bad for you?
 
theprestige said:
In what ways are large quantities of fructose bad for you, that large quantities of sucrose or glucose are not?

We know it's not high glycemic index, because fructose has a relatively low GI. Is it low-GI sugars that are especially bad for you?
Click to expand...
Fructose reacts very different with the body than sucrose. Read the damn thread if you want details. HFCS has a very high GI, as compared to fructose and sucrose.
 
Hercules56 said:
A can of coke has 39 grams of fructose.

One orange has 9 grams of fructose.

So basically one can of coke equals the same amount of fructose as 4 oranges.

But, the orange include all sorts of vitamins and fiber that are healthy for you to consume. The can of coke does not.

So yeah, consuming something that has added fructose is very different that eating a vegetable or fruit that has natural occurring fructose.

It's stupid and denying of science to suggest otherwise.

Plus the fruit and vegetables that have the natural fructose have all sorts of other healthy things that are good for your body.

Most things with added fructose have no such positive elements.

So in general the cumulative effect of eating a fruit or vegetable that has the same amount of fructose as most consumer products that have the same amount of added fructose, the fruit or vegetable is significantly healthier for you and will not do the damage tham the product with added fructose.

Four oranges a day will not do the same damage to your body as one Coke a day
Click to expand...
Now, put enough sucrose into that can of Coke to make it as sweet as the HFCS. It will be just as bad for your health.

Eating fruits and vegetables is better for you than anything with added sweeteners. This is well known and accepted science.
 
Hercules56 said:
Its posted in the thread. Read the thread.
Click to expand...
Hmm....I've seen some evidence that too much sugar is bad but I have not seen any evidence that HFCS is any worse for you than the same mix of fructose and glucose from fruit and cane sugar would be any better for you.
 
Hercules56 said:
HFCS has a very high GI, as compared to fructose and sucrose.
Click to expand...
No. The glucose in HFCS has a relatively high GI. The fructose in HFCS has a relatively low GI. HFCS is basically cutting high-GI glucose with equal amounts of low-GI fructose.

If large concentrations of high-GI sugars is your problem, then you should be complaining about the glucose in HFCS, not the fructose.
 
theprestige said:
No. The glucose in HFCS has a relatively high GI. The fructose in HFCS has a relatively low GI. HFCS is basically cutting high-GI glucose with equal amounts of low-GI fructose.

If large concentrations of high-GI sugars is your problem, then you should be complaining about the glucose in HFCS, not the fructose.
Click to expand...
The glycemic index (GI) of fructose is approximately 20.

HFCS is as high as 73.
 
theprestige said:
The glycemic index of glucose is approximately 100

Yeah, because HFCS is 50% glucose.

Are you saying glucose has a negligible effect on the body, compared to fructose?
Click to expand...
You guys are right. We dont eat too much sugar and fructose is no different than sucrose.

Americans are not too obese and we dont have too much diabetes and cancer. Its all woo.


;)
 
Hercules56 said:
A can of coke has 39 grams of fructose.

One orange has 9 grams of fructose.

So basically one can of coke equals the same amount of fructose as 4 oranges.

But, the orange include all sorts of vitamins and fiber that are healthy for you to consume. The can of coke does not.

So yeah, consuming something that has added fructose is very different that eating a vegetable or fruit that has natural occurring fructose.

It's stupid and denying of science to suggest otherwise.

Plus the fruit and vegetables that have the natural fructose have all sorts of other healthy things that are good for your body.

Most things with added fructose have no such positive elements.

So in general the cumulative effect of eating a fruit or vegetable that has the same amount of fructose as most consumer products that have the same amount of added fructose, the fruit or vegetable is significantly healthier for you and will not do the damage tham the product with added fructose.

Four oranges a day will not do the same damage to your body as one Coke a day
Click to expand...
Coke (original) contains 108g sugar / litre, cans vary in size. In the US but not Europe they are sweetened with HFCS 55% fructose 45% glucose. roughly 60g fructose vs 48g glucose. Depending on your apple juice you may get 80g fructose, 25g glucose and 10g sucrose per litre. In general apple juice will contain more fructose and more total sugars than coke. It does also contain vitamin C and other stuff. Is apple juice healthier than coke? If fructose is bad then no. Orange juice is probably healthier than apple juice.
 
Hercules56 said:
They react differently with the body.
Click to expand...
Planigale said:
Coke (original) contains 108g sugar / litre, cans vary in size. In the US but not Europe they are sweetened with HFCS 55% fructose 45% glucose. roughly 60g fructose vs 48g glucose. Depending on your apple juice you may get 80g fructose, 25g glucose and 10g sucrose per litre. In general apple juice will contain more fructose and more total sugars than coke. It does also contain vitamin C and other stuff. Is apple juice healthier than coke? If fructose is bad then no. Orange juice is probably healthier than apple juice.
Click to expand...
Yeah one of the insaner things is back when i was growing up fruit juice was touted as being healthy, when it really isn't. Whole fruit is much better because of the fiber contents. It slows digestion down.
 
Hercules56 said:
You guys are right. We dont eat too much sugar and fructose is no different than sucrose.

Americans are not too obese and we dont have too much diabetes and cancer. Its all woo.


;)
Click to expand...
If we all switched to "Mexican" Coke tomorrow with sucrose instead of HFCS, would Americans be more healthy, less healthy, or about the same?
 
lobosrul5 said:
Yeah one of the insaner things is back when i was growing up fruit juice was touted as being healthy, when it really isn't. Whole fruit is much better because of the fiber contents. It slows digestion down.
Click to expand...
Dont tell people this, its wooo!!!!!! :sdl:
 
Hercules56 said:
They react differently with the body.
Click to expand...
Fructose reacts differently than glucose. If and by how much fructose is worse than glucose is a matter of debate right now. There are no credible studies that show consuming free glucose and fructose in an approximately 50/50 ratio is worse for you than sucrose. Its just not there man. Give it up, the FDA isn't lying to us because of a shadowy corn farmer syndicate or something.
 
theprestige said:
You keep ignoring glucose. You keep ignoring the fact that fructose has a low GI, and glucose has a high GI.

We're not the ones ignoring facts. You are.
Click to expand...
Im agreeing with you guys!!

HFCS is totally ok, no different than eating an apple.

Enjoy.
 
Hercules56 said:
Im agreeing with you guys!!
Click to expand...
No. You're putting on an act of not caring, rather than admitting your errors and moving forward.
Hercules56 said:
HFCS is totally ok, no different than eating an apple.
Click to expand...
Admit it: You had no idea that HFCS was 50% high-GI glucose, did you?

Hercules56 said:
Enjoy.
Click to expand...
It's gotten a little depressing actually. But you still have a chance to salvage this dog's breakfast of a thesis.

Look, there's no shame in being wrong about this. I, too, came into this thread with no idea that HFCS was half glucose. I, too, thought the "problem" in HFCS was the high fructose.
 
Everyone agrees that too much sugar is bad. Everyone agrees that Americans (on average) consume too much sugar and the rate of obesity is too high.

theprestige said:
Look, there's no shame in being wrong about this. I, too, came into this thread with no idea that HFCS was half glucose. I, too, thought the "problem" in HFCS was the high fructose.
Click to expand...
Some people just refuse to admit that they were wrong about something, and want to pretend that other people are saying something different than what they said.

On fructose, I still remember learning as a kid in middle school health class (circa mid-1980s) that fructose was supposed to be the "good" sugar because it comes from fruits, which are natural and healthy, and sucrose was the bad one because it comes in candy bars and soda pop. This is around the time when food and beverage manufacturers were in the middle of switching from sucrose to HFCS in the US. But it wasn't really something that lay people knew much about yet. I remember that my best friend's dad had a bottle of Karo corn syrup that he used like pancake syrup. It was cheaper than maple syrup and some people liked it just fine. Funny enough, Karo claims that its corn syrup does not contain any HFCS. They must be aware of its bad rep and want to distance themselves from it.
 
Hercules56 said:
Evidence says it is most likely worse than sucrose based on how it reacts to the body. Go ahead and deny the evidence if that makes you happy.
Click to expand...
Dude, your digestive system very easily splits sucrose into fructose and glucose. The only reason that evidence points to fructose being worse than sucrose is because its only half fructose. So is HFCS (roughly).
 
lobosrul5 said:
Dude, your digestive system very easily splits sucrose into fructose and glucose. The only reason that evidence points to fructose being worse than sucrose is because its only half fructose. So is HFCS (roughly).
Click to expand...
High fructose corn syrup and natural fructose is much worse for your body than plain old sucrose. This is a fact.



50 g of sucrose a day is much healthier for you than 50 g of fructose a day.
 
Hercules56 said:
Fructose is worse for your body than Sucrose.

This is a fact.

www.healthline.com

Evidence Shows Some Sugars Are Worse Than Others; Fructose Tops t

Fructose and all added sugars are major drivers of type 2 diabetes, according to a new analysis.
www.healthline.com www.healthline.com
Click to expand...
Fred Brouns, Ph.D., a nutrition professor at the Maastricht University in the Netherlands, has published studies on fructose metabolism. He doesn’t think the evidence supports a claim that the fructose found in a typical American diet deserves to be singled out. It’s never eaten in isolation, for starters.​
“Fructose can be detrimental, correct, but only in excessive amounts that are not consumed by the majority of the population. It is unrealistic to put the finger to sugars alone and certainly not to fructose in isolation,” he said in an email.​
​
I question the premise that sugars are bad for your body, and therefore fructose is "worse".

According to your article, fructose doesn't digest as easily as other sugars, leaving more work for the liver. But this isn't a bad thing, for someone living a healthy lifestyle, and taking nutrients in moderation. Nobody's going to tell you to be careful eating oranges, because of all the fructose they contain.
 
Hercules56 said:
Fructose is worse for your body than Sucrose.

This is a fact.

www.healthline.com

Evidence Shows Some Sugars Are Worse Than Others; Fructose Tops t

Fructose and all added sugars are major drivers of type 2 diabetes, according to a new analysis.
www.healthline.com www.healthline.com
Click to expand...
If you read the 'science review' this is based on they are very clear added sugars are the problem, but fructose is worse than glucose and that sucrose is a source of fructose (and glucose). They do not distinguish between the fructose in sucrose or the fructose in HFCS. Added glucose, added sucrose and added fructose are all bad, but whilst the former is less bad than the latter, none are good. Getting sugars from fruit doesn't make them better, but it does mean you are getting other 'good' things like anti-oxidants or vitamins. Fruit juices aren't good for you. actual quotations below.
Overall, the evidence in the literature suggests that added fructose—from sucrose or HFCS—is associated with a variety of undesirable biological effects in both humans and animals.
Click to expand...
Replacing starch (an all-glucose polymer) with sucrose (glucose and fructose) increases fasting insulin, reduces insulin sensitivity, and leads to increased glucose concentrations. The change also leads to a variety of other undesirable metabolic effects, including increased cholesterol, apolipoprotein B, triglycerides, adipose storage, and blood pressure.
Click to expand...
Even 100% fruit juice (although technically not a sugar-sweetened beverage) provides high concentrations of fructose, removed from its usual biological context (eg, whole fruit). The consumption of fruit juice is associated with both increased body weight and risk of diabetes; associations that are also seen with the consumption of artificially sugared beverages but not with the consumption of whole fruits.
Click to expand...

Conclusion
There is no biological need for any added sugars in the diet, particularly those containing fructose (eg, sucrose and HFCS)....Avoiding processed foods altogether would be ideal, although this end seems unlikely given the current prominence—indeed predominance—of processed foods in the US diet. Dietary guidelines should encourage individuals to replace processed foods with whole foods, such as fruits and vegetables, and should incentivize industry to add less sugar, especially fructose-containing varieties, to food and beverage products.
Click to expand...
 
theprestige said:
Fred Brouns, Ph.D., a nutrition professor at the Maastricht University in the Netherlands, has published studies on fructose metabolism. He doesn’t think the evidence supports a claim that the fructose found in a typical American diet deserves to be singled out. It’s never eaten in isolation, for starters.​
“Fructose can be detrimental, correct, but only in excessive amounts that are not consumed by the majority of the population. It is unrealistic to put the finger to sugars alone and certainly not to fructose in isolation,” he said in an email.​
​
I question the premise that sugars are bad for your body, and therefore fructose is "worse".

According to your article, fructose doesn't digest as easily as other sugars, leaving more work for the liver. But this isn't a bad thing, for someone living a healthy lifestyle, and taking nutrients in moderation. Nobody's going to tell you to be careful eating oranges, because of all the fructose they contain.
Click to expand...
As far as glucose versus fructose, the thing that makes me say credible but inconclusive is more glucose is needed to make something as sweet as using sucrose, HFCS, or pure fructose. If substance x is 25% worse for you than substance y, but you consume 50% more of substance y... are you healthier??
 
I think this thread got onto the wrong foot somehow. I know I did, and I probably owe @Hercules56 an apology.

Slapfights about fructose and glycemic index aside, I think Hercules is actually making a pretty good case for HFCS being "bad" for you.

I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with fructose as a sweetener. There's a lot of stuff that's perfectly fine in our diets, as long as we don't consume too much of it. So I won't go so far as to say fructose is bad for you. I think Hercules overstepped, there.

But added sugars - especially industrial-strength artificially-compounded added sugars - seem like a dubious proposition to me. Easy access to too much sugar is a problem, in my opinion. So is the normalization of added sugars in our regular diet.

So, yeah. Eat fruit. Put sucrose in your coffee, if that's your thing. Even indulge in a sugary cereal or soft drink from time to time, if you like.

And also, yeah, Hercules56 isn't wrong about HFCS. Be mindful of your intake, because it's really easy to over-serve that stuff. Maybe too easy.

Herc, I apologize for busting your balls on this.
 
Planigale said:
If you read the 'science review' this is based on they are very clear added sugars are the problem, but fructose is worse than glucose and that sucrose is a source of fructose (and glucose). They do not distinguish between the fructose in sucrose or the fructose in HFCS. Added glucose, added sucrose and added fructose are all bad, but whilst the former is less bad than the latter, none are good. Getting sugars from fruit doesn't make them better, but it does mean you are getting other 'good' things like anti-oxidants or vitamins. Fruit juices aren't good for you. actual quotations below.





Click to expand...
We are talking about fructose as an added sugar, not naturally occurring in a whole apple, orange, pear, etc.
 
Hercules56 said:
Oh yes, there is a big difference to the health of your body if you get 36 grams of fructose from one can of Coke or 4 healthy natural oranges.

Kinda stupid to suggest otherwise.
Click to expand...
But if those oranges are juiced instead, you're still getting a boatload of sugar and little fibre. That's one of the reasons why people are encouraged to eat fruit rather than consuming "healthy" smoothies.

I had a colleague who used to drink a litre of orange juice every day and wondered why her weight and type 2 diabetes weren't well controlled.
 
The Don said:
But if those oranges are juiced instead, you're still getting a boatload of sugar and little fibre. That's one of the reasons why people are encouraged to eat fruit rather than consuming "healthy" smoothies...
Click to expand...

Agreed, pure juice is not great for you either as its missing all the vitamins and pulp.
 
The Don said:
But if those oranges are juiced instead, you're still getting a boatload of sugar and little fibre. That's one of the reasons why people are encouraged to eat fruit rather than consuming "healthy" smoothies.

I had a colleague who used to drink a litre of orange juice every day and wondered why her weight and type 2 diabetes weren't well controlled.
Click to expand...
Sad to hear. We have been lied to when all the people used to tell us that juice is super healthy. Like drinking an orange or an apple. It is NOT.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom