High-fructose corn syrup= bad

Hercules56 said:
Evil? Lay off the strawman. Nobody mentioned anything about morality here.
Click to expand...
Haha oh wow:

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...
 
CarbShark said:
No science or evidence has been provided that shows this. It is an unsupported, unfounded and untrue claim.
Click to expand...
Surely you jest, or you have refused to read the thread. A simple Google search will also show you.

But you can lead a horse to water....
 
theprestige said:
Too much water is bad for you.
Click to expand...
Please provide an article showing the long term negative health effects studied in humans of ingesting more than the recommended quantity of water per day. And no, obscene H2O poisoning in a very short amount of time without urinating does not count.

Find a scientific study regarding this and I will change my avatar to your choosing for 30 days.

Same for celery, cucumbers, oxygen, apples, natural and normal substance of your choice.
 
theprestige said:
I never said morally evil. I used the same turn of phrase you used. I think "the lesser of two evils" is inappropriate here, since neither of the things are in fact evils of any kind.
Click to expand...
Fructose has more negative affects than sucrose.
 
Hercules56 said:
Please provide an article showing the long term negative health effects studied in humans of ingesting more than the recommended quantity of water per day. And no, obscene H2O poisoning in a very short amount of time without urinating does not count.

Find a scientific study regarding this and I will change my avatar to your choosing for 30 days.

Same for celery, cucumbers, oxygen, apples, natural and normal substance of your choice.
Click to expand...
Same for fructose and sucrose. Added sugars are not bad for you. They should be consumed in moderation, that's all. Again, the US Army makes sure to include added sugars as part of a balanced diet for its soldiers.
 
theprestige said:
Same for fructose and sucrose. Added sugars are not bad for you. They should be consumed in moderation, that's all. Again, the US Army makes sure to include added sugars as part of a balanced diet for its soldiers.
Click to expand...
Too much added fructose is worse for you than too much added sucrose.
 
Hercules56 said:
Surely you jest, or you have refused to read the thread. A simple Google search will also show you.

But you can lead a horse to water....
Click to expand...
The article you cited had a headline that agrees with your premise, but the details in that article don't support it. Further, the article relied on several studies which also do not agree with your premise.

Bottom line:

Sugar (whether it's sucrose or HFCS) has both glucose and fuctose. Fructose is never found in foods without other sugars (almost always glucose). Foods with sugar and other simple carbs raise blood glucose levels and that has a cascading effect that includes insulin resistance; excess fat storage; metabolic syndrome and increased risks for chronic disease.

The fructose component of sugars contributes to NAFLD (Non alcoholic fatty-liver disease) and a few other issues when consumed in the amounts typical in the US diet.

No study or reputable scientist has found or claims that HFCS is inherently worse than sucrose, even though HFCS has slightly more fructose. There are claims that since HFCS is more commonly used in ultra-processed foods that it's a good idea to avoid foods that contain it, but chemically and metabolically sucrose and HFCS are almost indistinguishable.
 
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."...
Click to expand...
Ok, so you dont actually know what "drowning" means.

Hint: lungs filling up with liquid.
 
Planigale said:
Absolutely true, and I have seen people die from drinking too much water.
Click to expand...
It's not impossible.
It's called water intoxication or hyponatremia. The primary impact of too much water is dilution of sodium in your system which causes numerous problems and could lead to death.
 
Sigh, many cranberry sauces in cans use hfcs. Luckily Whole Foods sells a natural version. Yummm.
 
At some point, further quibbling about this becomes arguing for the sake of argument.

Bottom line is, all added sugars can be harmful if consumed in excess. That's all you really need to know.

Whether HFCS is even more harmful than other common sugars, like cane sugar, is still a controversial matter among scientists who study nutrition. But there is no doubt that too much of it is unhealthy. So sure, it's a good idea to limit your consumption of HFCS and other added sugars as much as possible.
 
EHocking said:
B, b, but RFKsays so…
“High-fructose corn syrup is “just a formula for making you obese and diabetic,” he has said.”

WTF has science got to do with regurgitating MAGA/MAHA cultism?
Click to expand...
That's my concern. In theory there's some kind of merit to MAHA so long as it's actually based on good evidence and has actual policy to support it.

By all means encourage people to lead more healthy lifestyles but you need to provide funding to do that. A healthy, cooked from scratch, balanced diet is much better than once based on ultra processed foods but unless people are given the skills, facilities, time and money to do that then it's just victim blaming. Likewise with preventative healthcare, it would be much better if everyone got a through health screening every year so that issues could be picked up early (and potentially addressed through lifestyle rather than medication) but in reality, it's only the wealthy who can afford this kind of thing.

Instead the US will go down the Daily Fail rabbit hole of classing everything as a cause of, or cure for, cancer which will have no net benefit on public health and will instead just confuse people even more.

If HFCS is eliminated from the US food chain then it won't make a difference to public health unless processed foods are reformulated not to require (so much) extra sugar. Here in the UK HFCS isn't banned but it's not generally used because we have our own, highly subsidised, sources of sweetening agents and our own issues with ultra processed food and our own obesity epidemic. We are a stark warning for anyone who thinks that simply eliminating HFCS will have a significant impact on public health.
 
Indeed. My whole objection to xxxx=bad is the over simplification and how “the public” eats up (pardon) the stupid simplification.

btw, I love a charcuterie board, which is in the ultra processed groceries basket, but I don’t eat a kilo of it every day.
 
Last edited:
One problem with the vilification of one single substance/food/whatsit is that it might turn it into to the opposite, of sorts, of a panacea, and then people will fixate on excluding that single whatsit, when they should instead look at and tweak their whole diet. But fundamntalism should always be abhorred, not just the religious kind, but also the dietary kind. Or any other kind, for that matter. (Except for the words of Jane Austen of course, they should be adhered to by the letter. Obviously.)
 
The Don said:
If HFCS is eliminated from the US food chain then it won't make a difference to public health unless processed foods are reformulated not to require (so much) extra sugar. Here in the UK HFCS isn't banned but it's not generally used because we have our own, highly subsidised, sources of sweetening agents and our own issues with ultra processed food and our own obesity epidemic. We are a stark warning for anyone who thinks that simply eliminating HFCS will have a significant impact on public health.
Click to expand...
I would argue eliminating simple and quickly metabolized carbs from the diet (which includes most forms of sugar; flour and most grain products) would have a significant benificial impact on public health. HFCS is just another form of sugar. No better no worse.
 
CarbShark said:
I would argue eliminating simple and quickly metabolized carbs from the diet (which includes most forms of sugar; flour and most grain products) would have a significant benificial impact on public health. HFCS is just another form of sugar. No better no worse.
Click to expand...
Why would you argue that ?

Carbohydrates aren't inherently bad as I understand it.
 
When I was a marathon runner, I used gels (packs of easily consumed processed sugary carbohydrates for providing a source of energy to increase muscle glycogen) during long runs.

I used gels that were mainly fructose because fructose is the sugar/carb that is converted to energy most quickly by the body.

I can see why consuming large amounts of fructose would be bad in some scenarios (diabetes, for instance), but in moderation it's very good for you in other scenarios.
 
Since I have diabetes, I minimise my intake of simple carbs (I don't eliminate them, tho, some of them are far too ennjoyable:blush:), but not the complex ones. If you aren't diabetic, I wouldn't bother too much - that said, I think at least our westen diets are a bit too high in simple carbs, which is not ideal, especially not for those who a pre-diabetic, or who risk developing diabetes.
 
The Don said:
Why would you argue that ?

Carbohydrates aren't inherently bad as I understand it.
Click to expand...
Simple carbs (sucrose, HFCS, flours, mostly) with moderate consumption cause blood sugar spikes which causes insulin spikes which are linked to a wide variety of health problems, including obesity, CVD, metabolic syndrome and other chronic diseases. Eliminating them is benefiicial.
 
Helen said:
Do you think elimination is necessary? In my experience, small amounts in an otherwise healthy diet aren't a problem (but that is mostly based on my personal expericene as my own lay, albeit fairly well read, dietician).
Click to expand...
If you have issues like obesity, CVD, metabolic syndrome or related chronic disease I would say yes.
 
CarbShark said:
I would argue eliminating simple and quickly metabolized carbs from the diet (which includes most forms of sugar; flour and most grain products) would have a significant benificial impact on public health. HFCS is just another form of sugar. No better no worse.
Click to expand...
I was diagnosed as prediabetic nearly two years ago. I changed my diet to reduce the carbohydrate content (by following the ZOE diet app), and my results are now in the normal range. I also lost a few kilos, but wasn't specifically watching calorie intake, only what foods I ate.
 
I was told that I was pre-pre diabetic about 15 years ago. The Dr. said my weight and blood lipid numbers (cholesterol, TGs, etc.) were on a straight line and if I didn't do something I'd have to start on statins in the next year.

I went on a strict LCHF diet and my healthy has greatly improved. (Note, before going on that diet I removed all HFCS and avoided most processed food first, and lost a few pounds then stalled).
 
CarbShark said:
I was told that I was pre-pre diabetic about 15 years ago. The Dr. said my weight and blood lipid numbers (cholesterol, TGs, etc.) were on a straight line and if I didn't do something I'd have to start on statins in the next year.

I went on a strict LCHF diet and my healthy has greatly improved. (Note, before going on that diet I removed all HFCS and avoided most processed food first, and lost a few pounds then stalled).
Click to expand...
LCHF?

Low calorie high fiber?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom