High-fructose corn syrup= bad

The one plausible claim I've heard regarding hfcs vs sucrose is that hfcs is less satiating, and hence you feel you need more. Thus, controlling for the total amount there isn't a noticeable difference between them, but people ingest more hfcs than they would if it was sucrose.

The reason I say this is plausible is because I think there is a taste/feel difference between drinks with hcfs vs sucrose (see Mexican Coke).

So in the end, 2 Cokes with HFCS are worse than 1 Coke with sucrose, and that's what happens in practice.
 
pgwenthold said:
The one plausible claim I've heard regarding hfcs vs sucrose is that hfcs is less satiating, and hence you feel you need more. Thus, controlling for the total amount there isn't a noticeable difference between them, but people ingest more hfcs than they would if it was sucrose.

The reason I say this is plausible is because I think there is a taste/feel difference between drinks with hcfs vs sucrose (see Mexican Coke).

So in the end, 2 Cokes with HFCS are worse than 1 Coke with sucrose, and that's what happens in practice.
Click to expand...
One coke with hfcs is worse than one coke with sucrose.
 
Hercules56 said:
One coke with hfcs is worse than one coke with sucrose.
Click to expand...
A bit (depending on the relative amounts of sugar*), but both are much worse than diet coke, coke zero or just plain water (as my mother always said; if you're thirsty drink water).

Mexican coke appears to contain 110g sucrose / litre equal to 55g fructose and 55g glucose, US cola has just over 60g / litre fructose. Both have substantially more fructose than coke zero, diet coke or water, both are far more unhealthy.

Beer contains no fructose.

 
I do love the parents in my neighborhood, wouldn't think of giving their kid a soda but have them sucking down organic apple juice likes its going out of style.
 
ahhell said:
I do love the parents in my neighborhood, wouldn't think of giving their kid a soda but have them sucking down organic apple juice likes its going out of style.
Click to expand...
I should have gone to dental school. I'd be retired and in my 2nd lake house by now. Those organic apple juice smiles would definitely keep a dental practice busy.
 
Tony99 said:
I should have gone to dental school. I'd be retired and in my 2nd lake house by now. Those organic apple juice smiles would definitely keep a dental practice busy.
Click to expand...
I am Gen X, so we were given lots of fruit juice. :(
 
pgwenthold said:
The one plausible claim I've heard regarding hfcs vs sucrose is that hfcs is less satiating, and hence you feel you need more.
Click to expand...
That may sound plausible but there are no studies that have found that.

This is like arguing whether Camel cigarettes are worse for you than Chesterfields.

HFCS is bad because it's much cheaper than sucrose, which means it be added to many foods increasing their sugars but not the cost.

HFCS is also bad because it's nearly identical to sucrose and sucrose is sugar and sugar is bad.

The healthiest things people could do is eliminate all sugars and refined carbs from their diets, limit complex carbs and get most calories from fat and moderate amounts of protein.
 
CarbShark said:
That may sound plausible but there are no studies that have found that.

This is like arguing whether Camel cigarettes are worse for you than Chesterfields.

HFCS is bad because it's much cheaper than sucrose, which means it be added to many foods increasing their sugars but not the cost.

HFCS is also bad because it's nearly identical to sucrose and sucrose is sugar and sugar is bad.

The healthiest things people could do is eliminate all sugars and refined carbs from their diets, limit complex carbs and get most calories from fat and moderate amounts of protein.
Click to expand...
HFCS is worse than sucrose cuz it has fructose, and fructose is worse than sucrose.
 
HFCS is worse than sucrose cuz it has fructose, and fructose is worse than sucrose.
Click to expand...

Both have fructose. HFCS has slightly more, but that difference has not been found to make it any better or worse for you than sucrose.

As someone suggested earlier, food is sweetened to taste, and it's fructose that provides most of the sweetness, so you're probably consuming the same amount of fructose when consuming surcrose sweetened or HFCS sweetened products.
 
CarbShark said:
Both have fructose. HFCS has slightly more, but that difference has not been found to make it any better or worse for you than sucrose.

As someone suggested earlier, food is sweetened to taste, and it's fructose that provides most of the sweetness, so you're probably consuming the same amount of fructose when consuming surcrose sweetened or HFCS sweetened products.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:
 
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...

Back in the day, when I was attending Weight Watchers, they talked about a member who had put on weight by eating carrots.

She'd been buying large sacks of carrots and juicing them, then consuming carrot juice whenever she felt hungry.

It turns out that you can gain weight by doing that.

I can't remember the exact figures, but it took multiple carrots to make a glass of carrot juice, and she was drinking many glasses of carrot juice.
 
novaphile said:
Back in the day, when I was attending Weight Watchers, they talked about a member who had put on weight by eating carrots.

She'd been buying large sacks of carrots and juicing them, then consuming carrot juice whenever she felt hungry.

It turns out that you can gain weight by doing that.

I can't remember the exact figures, but it took multiple carrots to make a glass of carrot juice, and she was drinking many glasses of carrot juice.
Click to expand...
Barely connected but my sister is nurse, she used work in a pediatrician's office. A mother brought in a kid that had turned orange from too much carrot juice. Basically, the only thing the kid had been eating or drinking.
 
theprestige said:
Sugar isn't bad, so fructose can't be "worse".
Click to expand...
It appears that there is ZERO health benefit to ingesting any sugar that is not naturally part of a food.

So yeah, added sugar is bad. Fructose, as an added sugar, is worse than sucrose as an added sugar.

Neither are good for you.
 
Hercules56 said:
It appears that there is ZERO health benefit to ingesting any sugar that is not naturally part of a food.
Click to expand...
Of course there are health benefits. Calories are good for you. The military understands that added sugars are an important part of a balanced diet for an active person. Get more exercise, moderate your overall calorie intake, and the added sugars won't be a problem. You can even indulge from time to time.

But look, there's nothing wrong with getting all your sugars from fruits and vegetables. If that's what you want to do, go for it!

But food crusades are insufferable.
 
Hercules56 said:
It appears that there is ZERO health benefit to ingesting any sugar that is not naturally part of a food.

So yeah, added sugar is bad. Fructose, as an added sugar, is worse than sucrose as an added sugar.

Neither are good for you.
Click to expand...

What do you mean by "zero health benefit" ?

I often go on long bicycle rides during which I expend 3-4,000 kcal over my basal metabolic requirements. In order to fuel this effort I resort to foodstuffs that contain added sugar, honey or other calorie dense simple carbohydrates.

If I relied on "naturally" available sugars in fruits I simply wouldn't be able to fuel myself adequately and as a result I would suffer a significant health effect - colloquially referred to as a bono or knock - been there, done that, prefer not to do it again.
 
The Don said:
What do you mean by "zero health benefit" ?

I often go on long bicycle rides during which I expend 3-4,000 kcal over my basal metabolic requirements. In order to fuel this effort I resort to foodstuffs that contain added sugar, honey or other calorie dense simple carbohydrates.

If I relied on "naturally" available sugars in fruits I simply wouldn't be able to fuel myself adequately and as a result I would suffer a significant health effect - colloquially referred to as a bono or knock - been there, done that, prefer not to do it again.
Click to expand...
I refuse to accept that tens of millions of years of human evolution and we cannot function well without artificially added sugar, at peak performance. Simply defies logic and science.
 
theprestige said:
Of course there are health benefits. Calories are good for you. The military understands that added sugars are an important part of a balanced diet for an active person. Get more exercise, moderate your overall calorie intake, and the added sugars won't be a problem. You can even indulge from time to time.

But look, there's nothing wrong with getting all your sugars from fruits and vegetables. If that's what you want to do, go for it!

But food crusades are insufferable.
Click to expand...

Sugar is an effective preservative. We get to enjoy the benefits of our grown, and foraged fruit all year round thanks to Mrs Don's jam making. Jams are also easily transportable and shelf-stable.
 
Hercules56 said:
It appears that there is ZERO health benefit to ingesting any sugar that is not naturally part of a food.

So yeah, added sugar is bad. Fructose, as an added sugar, is worse than sucrose* as an added sugar.

Neither are good for you.
Click to expand...
I pretty much agree.

*Remebering sucrose is a 50/50 combination of fructose and glucose. So 20 g of sucrose would be worse than 10 g of fructose, because the 10g of gucose is also bad. 10g sucrose is probably better for you than 10g of fructose. But because fructose is sweeter weight for weight than sucrose if you were adding sugars to equal sweetness you would probably add more sucrose than fructose. Somewhere between 10g and 20g of sucrose will be equivalently as bad as 10g fructose.

Using apple juice concentrate as a sweetner will add more fructose than HFCS, honey as a sweetner will add pretty much the same amount of fructose as HFCS, and sucrose will add less fructose but potentially more glucose as it will be less sweet weight for weight than any of the former.

No (or minimal) added sugars seems a good rule of thumb, although this will mean no more meringues**!

**There appear to be meringue recipes made with fructose, glucose or sucrose!
 
Hercules56 said:
I refuse to accept that tens of millions of years of human evolution and we cannot function well without artificially added sugar, at peak performance. Simply defies logic and science.
Click to expand...

We're evolved to cope with the rigours of a hunter gatherer lifestyle, not the rigours of Audax cycling.

Look at all the studies that show that the energy requirements for hunter gatherers is more or less the same as a comparatively sedentary office worker. I'm burning three times that amount of energy, elite athletes four or five times.

Currently elite cyclists consume 100-120 grammes of readily accessible carbohydrate an hour to fuel themselves. Good luck doing that without added sugar.
 
The Don said:
We're evolved to cope with the rigours of a hunter gatherer lifestyle, not the rigours of Audax cycling.

Look at all the studies that show that the energy requirements for hunter gatherers is more or less the same as a comparatively sedentary office worker. I'm burning three times that amount of energy, elite athletes four or five times.

Currently elite cyclists consume 100-120 grammes of readily accessible carbohydrate an hour to fuel themselves. Good luck doing that without added sugar.
Click to expand...
Most humans are not extreme athletes. Therefore have zero need for added sugar.

For the vast majority of humans, added sugar is a detriment to their health.
 
Hercules56 said:
Most humans are not extreme athletes. Therefore have zero need for added sugar.

For the vast majority of humans, added sugar is a detriment to their health.
Click to expand...
Most humans are not extreme athletes but your assertion was that added sugar has zero benefit and I pointed out a case where it does and while Audax cyclists and other endurance enthusiasts (I came to it from running) aren't in the majority, there are a lot of us.

Your assertion also presumes access to adequate quantities and quality of food. For most of human history, and in large parts of the world this is simply not the case. The nineteenth century mill workers would absolutely have benefited from added sugar as would hundreds of millions of people in the developing world.
 
The Don said:
Most humans are not extreme athletes but your assertion was that added sugar has zero benefit and I pointed out a case where it does and while Audax cyclists and other endurance enthusiasts (I came to it from running) aren't in the majority, there are a lot of us...
Click to expand...
Probably less than .001% of the world's population.
 
Hercules56 said:
Probably less than .001% of the world's population.
Click to expand...
0.001% of the world's population is under 1 million people. More than that compete in marathons annually.

Of course it's not just endurance athletes, plenty of people have physically demanding jobs and have caloric requirements which are much easier to meet with some added sugar, particularly at times of year and/or in places where copious amounts of fruit are not available.

Then there are the hundreds of millions of people globally who are under nourished and could maybe use added sugar in their diet

An increasing proportion of the world's population is "blessed" with a diet where calories are freely and cheaply available but that's not universally true.

HFCS is not uniquely, or even especially, bad.
 
The Don said:
0.001% of the world's population is under 1 million people. More than that compete in marathons annually.

Of course it's not just endurance athletes, plenty of people have physically demanding jobs and have caloric requirements which are much easier to meet with some added sugar, particularly at times of year and/or in places where copious amounts of fruit are not available.

Then there are the hundreds of millions of people globally who are under nourished and could maybe use added sugar in their diet

An increasing proportion of the world's population is "blessed" with a diet where calories are freely and cheaply available but that's not universally true.

HFCS is not uniquely, or even especially, bad.
Click to expand...
Do you accept that too much sugar is a bad thing, and too much fructose is worse than too much sucrose?
 
If you're making the naturalist argument, there is no sucrose or similar highly refined sugar regularly available in the human evolutionary diet (pre agriculture). Sugars are bound with fiber and honey is guarded by bees.

It's only fairly recently in human evolution that we have been able to refine sucrose from sources like beets or sugar cane (a few hundred years ago) and even more recently that refined sugar went from being an expensive luxury to an affordable staple (150 years ago +/-) and only a few decades ago where very cheap HFCS became ubiquitous in the industrial diet.

We did not evolve eating refined sugar or any highly refined carbs.
 
Hercules56 said:
Do you accept that too much sugar is a bad thing, and too much fructose is worse than too much sucrose?
Click to expand...
No. Here's why. Glucose and fructose are both metabolized in the liver. (Glucose is also metabolized throughout the body, but also in the liver). If glucose is low and fructose is high, the liver metabolizes fructose to glucose (as it does with many other carbs). But if glucose is also high, the chemical channels the liver uses to process fructose are not available, and it is processed into fat that is stored in the liver. (Google non-alcoholic fatty liver disease).
Too much sucrose is a bad thing. Too much glucose and fructose are also bad. (Of course "too much" of anything is bad).
 
Hercules56 said:
Do you accept that too much sugar is a bad thing, and too much fructose is worse than too much sucrose?
Click to expand...

Too much of any food is a bad thing but that's just a tautology. Too much celery is a bad thing.

You've yet to provide evidence that too much fructose is worse than too much sucrose - unless a person has a specific intolerance to fructose.

You've absolutely failed to demonstrate that the Fructose in HFCS is chemically different to fructose from other sources which was your initial assertion.
 
The Don said:
Too much of any food is a bad thing but that's just a tautology. Too much celery is a bad thing.

You've yet to provide evidence that too much fructose is worse than too much sucrose - unless a person has a specific intolerance to fructose....
Click to expand...
The science and evidence provided, shows this.
 
Hercules56 said:
That's cute.

Therefore we should not limit our intake of added sugar, especially fructose?

You're just being the Devil's Advocate.
Click to expand...
Angel's advocate.

Sugar isn't bad for you. Gluttony is bad for you. Excess is bad for you. Incontinence is bad for you.

Sugar is food. Added sugar is food. Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants. This anti-fructose crusade of yours is unnecessary.
 
theprestige said:
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.
Click to expand...
I appreciate your kindness. Thank you for understanding my position that while no added sugar is healthy for most people (i guess other than extreme athletes), added fructose seems to be the worse of the two evils between added fructose vs sucrose.
 
By the way, this isn't a "crusade" as some have suggested. Just an interest of mine. I dont lose sleep over it.
 
Hercules56 said:
So excess water does the same damage to you as excess fructose?

Huh, I thought you were taking the discussion seriously. Fooled me, did ya.
Click to expand...
Drink enough water, and you will literally drown. Not, "I fell into a lake and I can't swim" drown. Rather, "I drank so much water that my body is literally drowning on the inside."

Hercules56 said:
I appreciate your kindness. Thank you for understanding my position that while no added sugar is healthy for most people (i guess other than extreme athletes), added fructose seems to be the worse of the two evils between added fructose vs sucrose.
Click to expand...
Moderate amounts of added sugar aren't evil. They're even healthy, in a lot of scenarios. Sugar isn't evil. Gluttony is evil. Don't be a glutton.
 
theprestige said:
Drink enough water, and you will literally drown. Not, "I fell into a lake and I can't swim" drown. Rather, "I drank so much water that my body is literally drowning on the inside."


Moderate amounts of added sugar aren't evil. They're even healthy, in a lot of scenarios. Sugar isn't evil. Gluttony is evil. Don't be a glutton.
Click to expand...
Evil? Lay off the strawman. Nobody mentioned anything about morality here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom