The only thing that's particularly noteworthy there is the mercury levels. If you follow the articles for both sodium hydroxide and hydrochloric acid, you'll see that they're both used in the preparation of many food products.
These commercials make me so angry.
- Thread starter Nerdius Maximus
- Start date
The only thing that's particularly noteworthy there is the mercury levels. If you follow the articles for both sodium hydroxide and hydrochloric acid, you'll see that they're both used in the preparation of many food products.
That doesn't mean it's heathly, does it? Glycol is used as a preservative in salad dressing. It is also an ingredient in anti-freeze for automobiles. Aspartame, when broken down, is made up of wood alcohol.
The corn lobby is a monster for a few reasons. Americans eat and drink HUGE amounts of HFCS and any actual attempts to promote "moderation" will result in the industry losing money. Second, corn is wildly subsidized to make it artificially cheaper than products with cane sugar (and to support the farming community). Even if the human body finds sugar and HFCS indistinguishable from one another-- the amount consumed of in the standard diet is terribly unhealthy.
It doesn't mean it's healthy or unhealthy. The point is that throwing words like "poison" around when it isn't true is a lot more harmful to the anti-HFCS side then it is beneficial because it detracts from the real issues.
Glycol, btw, is not a compound but a type of compound. People get some amount of methanol (wood alcohol) as part of a normal diet. It's easy to throw out words that sound dangerous, but the digestive and metabolic process is a lot more complicated then that. Aspartame has a lot of controversy surrounding it and there isn't a clear consensus though certainly if you want to play it safe and avoid it then more power to you. But the names of components carries a lot less weight then actual scientific studies on short and long term effects.
I think it's mostly a US thing anyway. The EU heavily subsidises sugar production, so that's mostly what companies use here.
I know that HFCS are barely used in Australia. If it was it would probably put our sugar cane farmers out of business.
So I take it UNrefined sugar is healthier? In what way? The only thing unrefined sugar has that refined sugar doesn't have is DIRT!
Even if that were true, what would it prove? Chlorine gas is a deadly poison. Most municipal water supplies are chlorinated, as are most swimming pools. Does that mean you'll die from swimming in a pool or drinking tap water?
And why is high-fructose corn syrup supposed to be so bad for you, anyway? Sounds like another effort by the Health Police and the Food Police to tell us what we should and shouldn't put into our own bodies. SUGAR is SUGAR.
BTW, I drink Diet Coke because I find the regular stuff too sweet for my taste.
Last edited:
In terms of calorie content, sure, but as several people have pointed out already the fructose in HFCS suppresses the feeling of fullness so people tend to eat more. Using sucrose would help mitigate this to some degree, though whether this would be significant enough to actually cause a change in obesity rates is up for debate.
There's this nice middle ground between hyperbole and apathy. It's called science and it works pretty well.
I gave up soda over six months ago. Not just because of the HFCS, but because of the overly-high sugar content and the wasted, empty calories. I don't regret the decision. I'm probably still ingesting some level of HFCS but nowhere near the amount that I had been.
I just drink Pepsi Max or Coke Zero that doesn't have any calories at all. However both have aspartame in them but I am not convinced that aspartame is harmful to me.
A
Amaris
Guest
What? Refining sugar is where they remove the glucose and leave the rest. You say dirt, but it also removes all the vitamins and minerals from the plant. What you get is just the sweet and a whole lot of empty calories, which means no benefit to your body at all. That's why eating sugar in fruits is okay, because you're getting the natural sugars and the vitamins and minerals as well, and your body is better capable of absorbing it. That's why I put refined in quotations, because it's actually made worse, not better, by the refining process.
I think you mean they remove the sucrose. A sucrose is a glucose bonded to a fructose. Seperate glucose and fructose is the dominant form of sugar in lots of fruits, such as apples, bananas, grapes, and pears. It is also the combination in high-fructose corn syrup. Regular corn syrup is made by enzymatic action (similar to brewing), which breaks starches into glucose (corn sugar is almost pure glucose). Glucose isn't nearly as sweet as sucrose (table sugar - made from processed tables), so they turn about half of the glucose into fructose. Glucose is also listed as dextrose, which is its industrial name.
Ugh, somehow I got logged out and lost my post.
Anyway, I don't like the commercials because the person who doesn't like HFCS suddenly doesn't have an argument. Just stupid.
I've moved to sugar in the raw for my tea, and it's nice. I think I use less than the refined stuff too.
I perfer sodas with sugar, they just taste better. Coke and Mountain Dew actually taste good with sugar. With HFCS? Tastes like piss to me.
Anyway, I don't like the commercials because the person who doesn't like HFCS suddenly doesn't have an argument. Just stupid.
I've moved to sugar in the raw for my tea, and it's nice. I think I use less than the refined stuff too.
I perfer sodas with sugar, they just taste better. Coke and Mountain Dew actually taste good with sugar. With HFCS? Tastes like piss to me.
"It has HFCS in it!"
"So?"
"You know what they say about it?"
"What"
"Well... Uh..."
"That it's made from corn and it's fine in moderation and that it's not metabolized by your body in the same way as regular cane sugar and some studies have linked HFCS to the increasing rise of diabeties and obesity in America."
Suck it, corn council!
"So?"
"You know what they say about it?"
"What"
"Well... Uh..."
"That it's made from corn and it's fine in moderation and that it's not metabolized by your body in the same way as regular cane sugar and some studies have linked HFCS to the increasing rise of diabeties and obesity in America."
Suck it, corn council!
In terms of calorie content, sure, but as several people have pointed out already the fructose in HFCS suppresses the feeling of fullness so people tend to eat more. Using sucrose would help mitigate this to some degree, though whether this would be significant enough to actually cause a change in obesity rates is up for debate.
HFCS isn't used much in Australia, despite this there is almost asmuch obesity in australia as the USA.
A
Amaris
Guest
You're right. I got the word glucose stuck in my head (since that's what I think of when I deal with diabetes).
It's all that fatty kangaroo meat!
In terms of calorie content, sure, but as several people have pointed out already the fructose in HFCS suppresses the feeling of fullness so people tend to eat more. Using sucrose would help mitigate this to some degree, though whether this would be significant enough to actually cause a change in obesity rates is up for debate.
HFCS isn't used much in Australia, despite this there is almost asmuch obesity in australia as the USA.
