The Consumerist dot com of all places had this article. I am trying to figure out the truth behind it. While I agree that excess sugar is not good for you I believe that it is light years better than HFCS.

What do you think about this article? Is there any truth to this or more propaganda? Or just an author taking a point to the extreme or rather, playing the Devil's Advocate?

Quote :

"Natural sugar versus high-fructose corn syrup Scientists see little dietary benefit in food companies' scramble to swap out processed sweeteners for natural ones By Steve Mills | Tribune reporter June 25, 2009 The bright red label on a bottle of Ocean Spray cranberry juice cocktail boasts that it contains no high-fructose corn syrup. Its sweet replacement: sugar. Other juice producers also have replaced the sweetener with cane or beet sugar. Big-name products including Log Cabin syrup, some Kraft Foods dressings and certain Pepsi products have gone the same route. Starbucks has undertaken a switch from high-fructose corn syrup to sugar in its bakery goods. The turnabout is another step in the ongoing demonization of high-fructose corn syrup, a potent symbol of processed food's many evils. Since use of the sweetener exploded in the 1980s, it has been derided as unnatural and lacking any meaningful nutritional value, often mentioned in the same breath as such food villains as trans fats and artificial dyes. First Lady Michelle Obama recently added to the criticism by saying she will not serve food made with high-fructose corn syrup to her two young daughters. The beneficiary of this demonization has been sugar -- which some consumers have come to view almost as a health food. But most scientists and nutritionists agree sugar is no better than high-fructose corn syrup for a healthy diet. Many consumers see sugar as more natural, because making high-fructose corn syrup involves using enzymes in a complex series of chemical reactions. Environmentalists are concerned that depending on corn for sweeteners depletes the soil quality on land where it is farmed. Researchers have reported detecting traces of mercury in a small sampling of high-fructose corn syrup, though they cautioned that the study was limited. Some consumers say foods made with sugar simply taste better. Those issues have come to outweigh high-fructose corn syrup's benefits -- it helps keep foods moist, extends the shelf life of products and is cheaper to produce than cane or beet sugar. Consequently, it has become a popular ingredient in processed products in nearly every aisle of the supermarket. The fact is that high-fructose corn syrup and sugar both contribute to increased risks of obesity, diabetes, heart disease and other illnesses, according to the American Medical Association and numerous scientists and nutritionists. Although some studies have suggested the body metabolizes high-fructose corn syrup more slowly than it does sugar, experts say the bottom line for consumers is they should avoid both except in small amounts. Walter Willett, chairman of the nutrition department at Harvard University's School of Public Health and author of "Eat, Drink, and Be Healthy," called the recent spate of product reformulations away from high-fructose corn syrup a "marketing distraction." Ocean Spray Cranberries Inc. Chief Operating Officer Ken Romanzi did not disagree. Even though there is no proof that high-fructose corn syrup is more harmful than sugar, Romanzi said the maker of juices and other products "didn't want any negative implication that there was something bad for people in our Ocean Spray products." The company decided two years ago to switch; the move was completed last fall. "The problem," Romanzi said, "is that perception is reality in the minds of consumers." Similarly, Pinnacle Foods Group said it was responding to consumers when it replaced high-fructose corn syrup with sugar in its Log Cabin brand of syrup in April. Andy Reichgut, vice president of marketing for Pinnacle, said consumers prefer "the idea of products that were made with natural sugar. ... They believe that it delivers a cleaner and sweeter taste." Manufacturers of high-fructose corn syrup say the switch to sugar is the endgame in the long campaign against their sweetener, one largely based on unproven scientific assertions. "Consumers are being misled into thinking that there's something different about this corn sweetener than any other sweetener, when in fact they're essentially the same," said Audrae Erickson, president of the Corn Refiners Association, a trade group that represents makers of high-fructose corn syrup and other corn millers. The group, frustrated with continuing attacks on high-fructose corn syrup, launched a media and consumer campaign last summer to "change the conversation" about the product. "This is not for science. This is not for consumer health," Erickson said of the food manufacturers' switch to sugar. "It is clearly about quarterly earnings in a tight economic environment." Even the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a not-for-profit health advocacy group in Washington, D.C., said suggestions that high-fructose corn syrup is more harmful nutritionally than sugar is "one of those urban myths that sounds right, but is basically wrong," according to its Web site. But the group takes issue with claims by the Corn Refiners Association that high-fructose corn syrup is natural. While corn is natural, the Center for Science in the Public Interest said, high-fructose corn syrup "does not occur in nature" and, because it is heavily processed, "should be considered an artificial ingredient." The Food and Drug Administration does not define the term "natural," a word manufacturers have found useful in attracting health-conscious consumers. But the agency has said, in response to an industry-related inquiry, that high-fructose corn syrup is natural when produced through a particular process. Ann Titus, an associate creative director at a Chicago advertising firm, said she has turned away from high-fructose corn syrup as she has tried to maintain a healthy diet, and one she believes is more natural. She even gave up one of her favorite drinks -- Snapple raspberry tea -- because it contained the sweetener. "When I saw it was a main ingredient of raspberry Snapple, I stopped cold. Which was unfortunate, because I really loved raspberry Snapple," Titus said. As it happens, Snapple has joined the manufacturers that have replaced high-fructose corn syrup with sugar, switching the ingredients in many of its drinks earlier this year. Now its raspberry tea is made with sugar."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/health/chi-high-fructose-corn-syrup-25-jun25,0,7627724.story

Also, mods, I searched for a thread like this because I thought there was already one in existence, if you manage to find it go ahead and lock this one and I'll repost it.

6/25/2009 4:05:08 PM

the fuck do you mean "of all places"

consumerist is the bomb dot com when it comes to consumer-relevant food stories

6/25/2009 4:06:44 PM

What do I think of this article? Sugar and it's chemically-processed cousins are not very good for you, so I don't count them as a staple, therefore I don't really care. I won't let my kid drink Mountain Dew and I know that Ocean Spray Grape Juice aint really Juice.

Those are my views, apparently I am smarter than the majority of the US population when it comes to nutrition.

[Edited on June 25, 2009 at 4:17 PM. Reason : e]

6/25/2009 4:11:21 PM

The debate has become so political that it's impossible to know. There's tons of research saying that HFCS is awful, and there's other research saying it's the same as sugar.

I know one thing, though - to me, sugar tastes WORLDS better.

Also important is that HFCS is only used in processed, highly caloric foods. Replacing the HFCS in those foods will not make much difference, I don't think. What we should be doing is reducing the amount of processed foods we eat - HFCS or not.

HFCS used to be a marker that "this is something bad for you," even if the HFCS wasn't the culprit. My fear is that if everyone starts just using sugar, people won't cahnge their diets at all.

6/25/2009 4:12:46 PM

The problem with HFCS is that it is in so many foods that naturally don't have sugar in them, and there's no reason for it other than cheap filler.

Check out a loaf of bread next time you go to the store - you'll find it nearly impossible to find one without HFCS as one of the ingredients. Almost all packaged foods have it in them as well. HFCS is a sugar, and too much of any kind of sugar is not good for the diet, so if you eat these things, you're getting much more sugar in your diet than you should.

6/25/2009 4:30:05 PM

lol. PROCESSED FOOOOODS!!!!!11111

6/25/2009 4:51:14 PM

Toss Salad Man prefers syrup.

6/25/2009 4:54:35 PM

Natural Vermont Maple or Aunt Jemima? Cause that's the discussion.

6/25/2009 4:56:20 PM

no, he prefers grape jelly made from HCFS.

[Edited on June 25, 2009 at 5:03 PM. Reason : maple syrup tastes liek crap to me. mrs. butterworth!]

6/25/2009 5:03:19 PM

Quote :

"The problem with HFCS is that it is in so many foods that naturally don't have sugar in them, and there's no reason for it other than cheap filler."

yeah, that's what I came in to say.
It appears that on a physical or chemical level, HFCS aren't actually "that bad", at least not compared to sucrose.

The main problem, though, is that HFCS is put in everything now, because 1) it's cheap for the producers, and 2) people like sweet things, and will therefore keep buying them.

If sugar was put into everything HFCS is in now, then we'd be having the same obesity and calorie-overloads, but the foods would be more expensive because sugar is so much more expensive than HFCS.

here's a podcast from a couple weeks ago that pulls together the latest science on sucrose vs. glucose
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4157

6/25/2009 5:09:44 PM

Soft drinks made with sugar taste better to me, but I was raised on them and many of you weren't. And, yes, I know--Sodas are bad for you! :smug:

6/25/2009 5:45:12 PM

message_topic.aspx?topic=560404

6/25/2009 5:48:46 PM

HFCS saves the rain forest. Yes, I am being serious.

6/25/2009 8:01:53 PM

Quote :

"The problem with HFCS is that it is in so many foods that naturally don't have sugar in them, and there's no reason for it other than cheap filler. Check out a loaf of bread next time you go to the store - you'll find it nearly impossible to find one without HFCS as one of the ingredients. Almost all packaged foods have it in them as well. HFCS is a sugar, and too much of any kind of sugar is not good for the diet, so if you eat these things, you're getting much more sugar in your diet than you should."

This. I'm amazed the wide range of things that have HFCS that don't need any sweetener at all.

As for the article, you shouldn't be eating excess of any sweetener. Yes, if people are eating the same amount of sweetener rather than an overall reduction of the amount they consume, of course there won't be much health benefit from dumping HFCS.

6/25/2009 8:26:45 PM

sugar is sugar is sugar is sugar. also, plenty of rainforest is cut down to grow corn and silage too.

6/26/2009 12:59:43 AM

Quote :

"If sugar was put into everything HFCS is in now, then we'd be having the same obesity and calorie-overloads, but the foods would be more expensive because sugar is so much more expensive than HFCS."

i heard the opposite...HFCS is only "cheaper" because it's subsidized by the federal government to keep our farmers employed growing corn that we would otherwise not use...it was my understanding that sugar is cheaper without the subsidization

as mentioned before, though, there's been so much misinformation (or, rather, information with valid counterpoints) thrown around that it's hard to know what's true and what isn't

Quote :

"The annual per-capita consumption of caloric sweeteners has increased by 40 pounds in the last 40 years, and high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) accounts for 81% of the 83 additional calories the average American consumes each day from sweeteners alone. ... The authors also note corn subsidies have saved HFCS makers significant cash over the years. Indeed, they reckon that because of the downward pressure on corn prices from subsidies, HFCS producers—including the dominant one, Archer Daniels Midland—accessed "corn priced 27% below its cost from 1997-2005." As a result, producers booked a cool $2.2 billion in savings between 1997 and 2005 (a period of dramatically heightened subsidy payments). ... If subsidies didn’t cause HFCS to become ubiquitous, what did? The authors point to the sugar quota put into place by the federal government in the early 1980s, which strictly limits the amount of foreign-grown sugar that can enter the United States. They mention one recent study (PDF) claiming that the quota elevates the U.S. price of sugar to two-to-three times the global level, giving HFCS manufacturers the opportunity to undercut sugar producers. But if you think about it, without the quota, we’d be awash in cheap sugar—and might still have a food system awash in overly sweet and caloric foods. Like most agricultural commodities, sugar has see its price drop steadily over the past few decades, pushed down by overproduction. ... The USDA site also says that 4.1% of U.S. corn goes for high fructose corn syrup. That means that since 29.9% of all U.S. cropland harvested was planted in corn in 2007, 1.2% of all U.S. cropland harvested in 2007 went for high fructose corn syrup. That’s only slightly less than the 1.5% of U.S. cropland devoted to vegetables or the 1.6% of U.S. cropland devoted to [fruit] orchards."

http://www.grist.org/article/Farm-subsidies-bitter-and-sweet

honestly, my take on the whole thing has been this - our bodies developed to handle certain compounds on a regular basis, sugar being one of them...i realize that sugar is sugar is sugar, but that's not entirely true...the differences in chemical composition make them different compounds and while i'm not saying that HFCS is going to kill us or cause cancer or is "bad" for us, i would prefer that, all things being equal (calories, cost, etc.), i would MUCH rather take in sugar than HFCS

add to that the possibility that cane sugar might be cheaper than HFCS were the subsidies and quotas removed...AND the fact that, IMO, sugar tastes better (i've never met anyone who thought it tasted worse, but i know some people who say they can't tell the difference), and i don't see any reason why we should use HFCS at all

[Edited on June 26, 2009 at 9:10 AM. Reason : .]

6/26/2009 9:01:05 AM

Quote :

"i heard the opposite...HFCS is only "cheaper" because it's subsidized by the federal government to keep our farmers employed growing corn that we would otherwise not use...it was my understanding that sugar is cheaper without the subsidization"

that's not really the opposite of what I was saying at all.....
I realize that HFCS is cheaper because of the massive corn subsidies in the farm bill - that point was implicit in the overall statement of why companies are using HFCS instead of sugar. I don't know if sugar is "naturally" cheaper or not, but as long as we have the Farm Bill, it's a moot point.

6/26/2009 9:08:45 AM

[quotealso, plenty of rainforest is cut down to grow corn and silage too.[/quote]

no, really? What is your point? Are you trying to say that increased cane sugar demand wouldn't escalate deforestation by increasing price/incentive?

6/26/2009 9:11:33 AM

^^ that article addresses a few points and it is probably better to read the whole thing than just the parts i highlighted...if i'm reading it correctly, though, sugar would be cheaper were the farm bill subsidies and import quotas removed from the equation

*shrug*

[Edited on June 26, 2009 at 9:15 AM. Reason : carats]

6/26/2009 9:12:13 AM

Quote :

"i heard the opposite...HFCS is only "cheaper" because it's subsidized by the federal government to keep our farmers employed growing corn that we would otherwise not use...it was my understanding that sugar is cheaper without the subsidization"

Well of course that's why it's cheaper. Subsidies and large tariffs on the import of cane sugar from South American countries.

6/26/2009 9:14:25 AM

if anyone cares, here's the USDA sugar-tariff bit: http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/Sugar/Policy.htm#TRQ

6/26/2009 9:15:43 AM

HFCS is what makes people fat...


You can see the correlation of increased fructose consumption and increased weight gain.

“In one longitudinal study involving about 500 school children, it was concluded that each serving of sugar-sweetened drinks increased body mass index (BMI) by 0.25 kg/m2.”
Angela et al. Nutrition Reviews. June 2007


The SGLT1 transporter is the energy requiring glucose transporter in the intestinal tract. It requires energy to function and is driven by an electrochemical gradient maintained by the ATPase located in the basal part of the cell. This is why any other sugar is favored for consumption. HFCS is facilitated, meaning it doesn't require energy to become metabolized.



Here's are some other facts that support this as well:

requires no energy for absorption in the intestines (Glut5 facilitated transporter)

does not need insulin to enter cells

bypasses the main regulatory step in glucose metabolism (the enzyme phosphofructokinase). This prevents downregulation in the metabolism of fructose to fatty acids or glycerol

increases the production of triglycerides

decreases production of glycogen

over production of triglycerides results in increased insulin insensitivity and detrimentally affects blood lipoproteins

there is evidence to show that fructose affects expression of certain genes that favor fat accretion in the body


If you are seriously thinking about not drinking soda but you love soda, Pepsi came out with a sugar-based soft drink for Pepsi and Mt Dew. They taste the same but with out that tangy feeling.

Oh yeah and its everywhere in your food. I guarantee if you pick up anything and read the label, it will contain HFCS

I hope this is helpful

6/26/2009 9:24:15 AM

Quote :

"HFCS is what makes people fat..."

completely false...for the vast vast VAST majority of people, what makes them fat is consuming significantly more calories than they burn

if they over-indulge in sugar, it'll make them fat just as quickly as over-indulging in HFCS

6/26/2009 9:38:22 AM

^^Hey, so does that mean if I eat a lot of apples or whatever that I'm gonna die? Serious, cause I really dig apples.

6/26/2009 9:59:09 AM

if you eat a lot of anything, it will hurt you.

If an apple has ~60 calories, and 95% of them are carbohydrates (sugar), then sure - you eat too many apples and you'll have way to much sugar. That's why people can get in trouble with drinking fruit juices - they think they're being healthy ("hey, it's fruit - it's good for me! i'll have as much as I want!"), but they're really just taking in a lot of sugar.

Of course, considering a regular 12oz soda has about 200 calories, all sugar again, and lots of people drink 3-4+ of those a day, then you'd have to substitute about 6 apples to make up for all those sodas.

6/26/2009 10:29:56 AM

Squirt, while there is a lot of evidence, that correlation doesn't mean anything on its own. I'm sure I don't need to mention the correlation between murders and ice cream sales. Think about it - the increase in HFCS consumption also correlates with the increase in production and consumption of highly processed foods, and those do make you fat... so it could just be that.

I'm not pretending HFCS has no deleterious effects - I think it probably does. But, we can't 100% blame it and ignore the fact that people eat much more packaged food now than they ever have.

[Edited on June 26, 2009 at 10:34 AM. Reason : .]

6/26/2009 10:34:33 AM

Quote :

" You can see the correlation of increased fructose consumption and increased weight gain."

Not really. Take the second chart you posted. Between 1970 and 1997 fructose consumption took off, true, but so did the total amount of sugar consumed. That chart shows that the average diet had an increase of ~20kg of sugar per year from any source, a roughly 33% increase in sugar consumption. So maybe the problem isn't the introduction of HFCS, but the total increase in sugar consumed. I find it far more likely it is the latter.

6/26/2009 12:28:09 PM

IT'S ALL MARKETING

6/26/2009 1:03:53 PM

Sugar is healthier than HFCS.
HFCS is unhealthy for the many reasons that Squirt stated.
Sugar isn't the cause of obesity.
HFCS isn't the sole cause of obesity.
Excess of calories is the cause of obesity.


Eat nutrient dense foods, unprocessed foods, and take Vitamins.

6/26/2009 1:42:55 PM

Ever since I've changed my eating ways a couple years ago I ALWAYS read the labels on items I purchase. The HFCS is astronomical and totally ridiculous. The reason it's in things like bread is because it provides a longer shelf life and keeps things moist but I'd rather buy smaller bags with a shorter shelf life than put that crap into my body.

We were looking at Ocean Spray and they've just added sugar which is not as good for you as the sugar that COMES from actual fruit though they advertised it as being all natural juice, etc. Unless you spend a lot of time researching then it's hard to know what to look out for.

I just thought it shocking to find an article that almost supported HFCS by saying it was no worse than cane or beet sugar.

6/26/2009 1:52:29 PM

The FDA provides no definition or detailed guidelines for the use of the term 'natural'
Natural is a marketing word used in the food industry.

6/26/2009 1:55:27 PM

Quote :

"Eat nutrient dense foods, unprocessed foods, and take Vitamins."

uhh.... i was with you on the first two, but vitamins? Especially if you're making an effort to eat "nutrient dense foods" (fresh fruits, veggies) and unprocessed foods? Not necessary. If you have a good diet, especially made of up the foods you're encouraging, then you don't need supplementation. Vitamin supplements for normal, healthy people with good diets (i.e. who aren't anemic or have specific disorders) have been shown to be a waste, with no particular benefits.

6/26/2009 2:33:20 PM

Although "nutrient dense" foods provide us with a wide range of vitamins and minerals it doesn't mean we are getting the variety that we need for our bodies to deal with the modern carcinogenic substances we consume. Most fruits and vegetables are filled with hormones and pesticides. Eating animal products is even worse.
Large doses of certain vitamins and minerals have been shown to cure certain illnesses.
Also there is no deaths caused by taking vitamin supplements.
Therefore, I think it would be foolish not to pop a vitamin supplement daily.

6/26/2009 3:17:06 PM

been drinking the mountain dew throwback for a couple weeks

it's delicious

6/26/2009 3:27:04 PM

Quote :

"Also there is no deaths caused by taking vitamin supplements. "

Ah, I see that you are just making things up now.

Studies attempting to prove that Vitamin E is good for you actually proved the opposite. Vitamin E is linked to Heart Failure. Last time I checked, that can kill a person.

http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/news/20050315/vitamin-e-harms-more-than-helps
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/10/health/webmd/main654887.shtml

[Edited on June 26, 2009 at 3:29 PM. Reason : ]

6/26/2009 3:28:24 PM

^^^ i agree with most of what you've said...RELYING on vitamin supplements and pretending like you're going to get all that you need from them is dumb...however, using them as they're meant to be used (as a supplement!) is, in most cases, a good idea...a BETTER idea is to break that multivitamin in two pieces and take it with your two smallest meals (for me, that's usually breakfast and lunch, as i assume it is for most people)

the vitamins in a multi supplement don't just wait around waiting to be used...if your body doesn't use them within a certain amount of time, you piss and poo them out and that's pointless...breaking them into smaller amounts and taking them WITH food helps give your body the nutrients more gradually, when certain ones might be depleted

i might be off-base here, but IIRC, the vitamins from food are more readily available than vitamins in a supplement...what this means is that if you take a multivitamin with (or just after) your meal, your body will take what it needs from the food and then supplement what's leftover from the vitamin

[Edited on June 26, 2009 at 3:33 PM. Reason : .]

6/26/2009 3:32:57 PM

Quote :

"Large doses of certain vitamins and minerals have been shown to cure certain illnesses. "

maybe, but large doses of certain vitamins and minerals have also been shown to cause kidney and liver problems or failure.

And, they've also been shown to empty your bank account faster than anything else you put in your mouth.

6/26/2009 4:23:39 PM

Quote :

"suggestions that high-fructose corn syrup is more harmful nutritionally than sugar is "one of those urban myths that sounds right, but is basically wrong,""

[Edited on June 26, 2009 at 4:57 PM. Reason : q]

6/26/2009 4:54:25 PM

Quote :

"We were looking at Ocean Spray and they've just added sugar which is not as good for you as the sugar that COMES from actual fruit though they advertised it as being all natural juice, etc. Unless you spend a lot of time researching then it's hard to know what to look out for."

Have you ever had unsweetened cranberry juice? Nastiness. I do know there's a brand that sweetens their cranberry juice with apple juice though.

Quote :

"Large doses of certain vitamins and minerals have been shown to cure certain illnesses. "

Yeah, scurvy and beriberi

6/26/2009 8:49:18 PM

Don't forget rickets.

6/27/2009 8:20:17 AM

Scurvy + Rickets = Scrickets

Help us find a cure.

6/27/2009 8:44:23 AM

I don't know. Kroger makes this 100% juice that is fanfuckingtastic. Granted it's the Pom/Cranberry flavor and is actually mixed with other juices but there's no sugar or HFCS added! Love the stuff.

I also get Nature's Own 100% Wheat or Whole Grain bread. They don't have HFCS either. I need to find bagels without HFCS in them.

[Edited on June 28, 2009 at 5:55 PM. Reason : kdhs]

6/28/2009 5:55:11 PM

Bleach doesn't have sugar or HFCS. You should drink a bunch of that.

6/28/2009 5:58:34 PM

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic
or just fat

6/28/2009 6:11:28 PM

Both.

6/28/2009 6:12:31 PM

Quote :

"if you eat a lot of anything, it will hurt you. If an apple has ~60 calories, and 95% of them are carbohydrates (sugar), then sure - you eat too many apples and you'll have way to much sugar. That's why people can get in trouble with drinking fruit juices - they think they're being healthy ("hey, it's fruit - it's good for me! i'll have as much as I want!"), but they're really just taking in a lot of sugar. "

There is a good book called In Defense of Food that has a lot of evidence to the contrary. They are both calories, but the interactions of your body with food is incredibly complex, and the only compounds we know we need are the ones that cause rather immediate disease. There are probably billions of minor interactions that take many, many years to manifest which we don't know about yet. There are a lot of things in apples which aren't in the FDA's limited view of nutrition.

My personal view is that if you eat fruit, cheese or meat, it should be fruit cheese and meat. No ground up soy filler in the hamburger, no sweet filler in the bread, no vegetable oils and salt processed into something that doesn't even taste like cheese. Real food just tastes better, period.

They used to make margarine purple by law, they should still do that in my opinion. We let food companies add in increased fillers which make the food taste like shit. Things are turning around luckily.

6/29/2009 12:43:27 PM

Sugar just tastes better than corn syrup.

I don't know who looked at corn and thought "gee this would make a good sweetener" but it's easy to suck on a sugar cane and think "wow, this would make a good sweetener."

And it's kind of bizarre to me that people are arguing FOR the use of a product that thrives solely because of government bureaucracy and meddling. Shouldn't the default position be to argue AGAINST this?

I like corn, but it is a drastically inferior sweetener to actual sugar.

6/29/2009 2:08:05 PM

Quote :

"There is a good book called In Defense of Food that has a lot of evidence to the contrary. They are both calories, but the interactions of your body with food is incredibly complex"

I'm familiar with In Defense of Food and Pollan in general, and I don't think that's really "contrary" to what I was saying. OK, sure - 300 calories in apples is certainly better than 300 calories in soda, because of all the additional benefits of apples/fruit and maybe the calories will be "put to use" in different ways.

However, if you take your existing diet of, say, 2000 calories/day where you are at an equilibrium with your weight, then you add 500 additional calories in apples, broccoli, spinach, or HFCS, you will still gain weight, even though the calories may be from "good sources"

6/29/2009 4:19:21 PM

Taste is one issue, and most people seem to prefer the taste of sugar to HFCS.

Nutrition is another issue. Just because a substance is 'natural' doesn't make it any more or less healthier than something that is partially natural. Butter is natural too, and most scientists are in agreement that it is bad for you, as are corn oil and sunflower oil. And snake venom is natural as well.

The truth is that both sugar and HFCS will kill you one day (assuming you have too much of either/both). No more than 10% of daily calories should come from simple sugars, but for a lot of kids and young people these days (damn the callous parents), that number is typically around 20-30%, and sometimes as high as 50%.

HFCS might be more harmful than sugar, but only by a little, and it is stupid to argue which is more harmful, as both are very harmful to begin with. It would like trying to figure out whether soda is more harmful or some fruit drink which is just 2-3% juice and lots of sugar.

But yes, the main issue here is that HFCS is put into everything... into foods where sugar wouldn't be used normally.


[Edited on June 29, 2009 at 6:34 PM. Reason : ]

6/29/2009 6:33:54 PM

Concerning taste, go to World Market in Crossroads and buy this. . .



. . .and tell me it doesn't taste better than any damn Sprite or 7UP.

Take the Bubble Up challenge.

6/29/2009 6:50:06 PM