EverydayInvestor (< 20)

78 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On March 30, 2009 at 11:52 AM, outoffocus (26.88) wrote:

Well, I believe that processed food in general is less healthy for you than natural foods.  I place HFCS in that category of "processed" food as well as all forms of "artificials sugars" (e.g. sucralose, sorbitol, malitol, aspartame, saccharin, etc).  Even most table sure is processed because it is bleached. I believe that our bodies were not originally designed to properly metabilize all these overly-processed and derived foods and chemicals (just like our market was not designed to process all these derived assets).  Then end result is a screwed up immune system that doesnt know whether to attack these foreign substances or embrace them, organs that dont know whether to process these chemicals or pass them through; which leads to all types of complicated, hard to diagnose auto-immune disorders and cancers (not to mention diabetes).

How did I come to this conclusion? Lots of research into what causes cancer and autoimmune disorders. 

Now don't get me wrong, the jury is still out of alot of these effects of all these processed foods.  But do you ever wonder why the instances of cancers, allergies, and other auto-immune disorders have gone up over the years?  I wonder all the time.

Report this comment

#2) On March 30, 2009 at 11:53 AM, outoffocus (26.88) wrote:

Even most table sure

I meant table sugar.

Report this comment

#3) On March 30, 2009 at 12:01 PM, tonylogan1 (29.11) wrote:

quick answer with no thought given: I would think HFCS is no worse healthw-se than table sugar, so long as you read the packaging and see the total caloric content is similar.

I would guess there is some natural sugar agenda that seeks to oppress HFCS becuase it is cheaper to produce.

Kindof like how vanilla bean manufacurers fought to force the word "imitation" vanilla extract on non-vanilla bean producers, despite the compoubds being chemically identical.

I am so tempted to do actual research on this now...

Report this comment

#4) On March 30, 2009 at 12:05 PM, tonylogan1 (29.11) wrote:

http://www.sweetsurprise.com/myths-and-facts/top-hfcs-myths

 

nice.... thanks for making me look this up...

by the way, I assume your conclusion after doing research on global warming was that we need to act soon to make sure the earth does not cool?

I am starting a new plan to burn everything eeryone can get a hold of in an effort to boost earth temeratures and stimulate plant growth and prevent the next ice age.

Report this comment

#5) On March 30, 2009 at 12:12 PM, JTShideler (94.02) wrote:

The Absdiet book, says to avoid HFCS because the reprocessing inhibits your body from registering the HFCS as sugars.  So you could take in all the calories you wanted from HFCS but your body would not feel full.  The best example I can think of is someone drinking a lot of regular soda.  Its got a lot of calories but your body doesn't feel full after drinking it, so you end up taking a lot more calories then you need causing weight gain.

Report this comment

#6) On March 30, 2009 at 12:12 PM, tonylogan1 (29.11) wrote:

i am also planning on getting a new keyboard where all the keys work.

Report this comment

#7) On March 30, 2009 at 12:18 PM, TDRH (99.92) wrote:

Everyday, this is an unqualified statement from a simpleton, but in general I stay away from corn products. In high school I worked on a dairy farm on the weekends, and I can say with certainty that a cow with four stomaches still does not process corn very well. I only have one stomach. I do have a weakness for popcorn on occassion, but only small amounts. I also do not drink as much milk as I did before I worked there.

Report this comment

#8) On March 30, 2009 at 12:18 PM, motleyanimal (99.22) wrote:

Sticky keys?

Yet another peril of excess sugar.

Report this comment

#9) On March 30, 2009 at 12:26 PM, tfirst (77.95) wrote:

The processed sugars are just like cocaine. Concentrated and very addictive. The big business people already know this and they wouldn,t go natural even if they could.

Report this comment

#10) On March 30, 2009 at 12:33 PM, lquadland10 (< 20) wrote:

Well Look at the new bills coming from congress. Monsanto is corning the market and will control the crops. No organic. Cargill is also in on it. As for high fructose corn syrup (HFCS)   If we have problems now how do we know if the corn comes from regular cross pollinated corn or corn that Monsanto has engineered by genetics? Also their test crops cross pollinate with reg corn and get into the food system. What will that do to us. Most of the seed from Monsanto is genetically altered with what? We do not know. One is Round up a weed killer so it will be resistance to it. What else are they doing that we don't know about because of the patents. Hitler never had as much power as Monsanto and Cargill does. We are the gunnie pigs. Obama new electronic medical tracking. They will get their results one way or another.

Report this comment

#11) On March 30, 2009 at 12:34 PM, MrSucrose (< 20) wrote:

Funny thing is that HFCS is only about 50% fructose.  Table sugar is about 50% fructose as well.  It isn't so much about the sugar as the delevery method.  HFCS is bad because it comes in sodas that people drink large amounts of.  On example I have heard was "Where hunter/gatherer man have access to 64oz of refined easily digested simple carbohydrates?" 

I wouldn't consider a HFCS a boogeyman outside of how easily it is liquified.

Usually my decesion making process is to look at both sides of an issue and then look at the people that I trust or consider authorative on the issue and lean toward their side. 

Report this comment

#12) On March 30, 2009 at 12:35 PM, MrSucrose (< 20) wrote:

http://www.t-nation.com/free_online_article/sports_body_training_performance_nutrition/thank_you_for_guzzling_corn_syrup

For example of authorative opinion I think Dr. Lowery is a pretty sharp guy.

Report this comment

#13) On March 30, 2009 at 12:36 PM, jstegma (30.18) wrote:

I don't like corn syrup as well as sugar in soft drinks.  Mexican cokes in glass bottles with real sugar taste a lot better than American cokes in plastic bottles with corn syrup.

Eating corn won't hurt you, regardless of whether people or cows can digest it.  As my wife so poetically said it, whenever you eat corn just remember to say "See ya in a couple of days!" 

Uh huh huh huh!  Corn is cool!  Uh huh huh!

 

Report this comment

#14) On March 30, 2009 at 12:36 PM, JGus (29.54) wrote:

I read a great book by Michael Pollan - In Defense of Food: An Eater's Manifesto which talked about HFCS in a number of places. His take - it's being put in just about EVERYTHING and isn't very good for you. The book was a great read and has had an impact on how I shop and eat. I haven't researched the issue much beyond that.

Report this comment

#15) On March 30, 2009 at 12:42 PM, nottheSEC (< 20) wrote:

Disclaimer : I am not a doctor. 

Interesting topic.Note cane sugar is 50 % fructose 50 % glucose. HFCS is higher in fructose and aptly named. I have an article that says the fructose in HFCS promotes copper defiency which leads to health problems. The severity is unclear and their are confilcting articles to this effect. I definately would not reccommend excessive HFCS consumption in gastric bypass patients  Read below as the start of your own informed due diligence. All best J  

http://www.westonaprice.org/modernfood/highfructose.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copper_deficiency

Report this comment

#16) On March 30, 2009 at 12:47 PM, nottheSEC (< 20) wrote:

Respectfully HFCS has generally 10 %+ more fructose.From the fine folks at Wikpedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_fructose_corn_syrup

 The most common types of high-fructose corn syrup are: HFCS 90 (mostly for making HFCS 55), approximately 90% fructose and 10% glucose; HFCS 55 (mostly used in soft drinks), approximately 55% fructose and 45% glucose; and HFCS 42 (used in many foods and baked goods), approximately 42% fructose and 58% glucose.[3]

Report this comment

#17) On March 30, 2009 at 12:50 PM, nottheSEC (< 20) wrote:

 jstegma (99.82) I miss cane sugar pop.

Report this comment

#18) On March 30, 2009 at 12:51 PM, chk999 (99.99) wrote:

Given the large windrows of dead bodies I have to pass on a daily basis, all of them clutching HFCS in their death grip, I suspect it is dangerous.

Report this comment

#19) On March 30, 2009 at 12:59 PM, EverydayInvestor (< 20) wrote:

wow maybe I should write more about non-investing topic! Lots of good comments. I'll have some shortly.

Report this comment

#20) On March 30, 2009 at 12:59 PM, FleaBagger (98.05) wrote:

I would guess there is some natural sugar agenda that seeks to oppress HFCS becuase it is cheaper to produce.

What is the evidence of HFCS being cheaper to produce? From the evidence I've seen, sugar is the cheapest form of sugar, and that's why ADM needs sugar tariffs in place to turn a profit on their HFCS.

Report this comment

#21) On March 30, 2009 at 1:00 PM, usmilitiadude (66.61) wrote:

I know what I'll be whistling all day long.....thanks a lot.

Report this comment

#22) On March 30, 2009 at 1:04 PM, saintmoritz (< 20) wrote:

The important thing to remember about processed foods is that they were not a part of the diet our bodies evolved to assimilate.  Eat like a cave man! 

Report this comment

#23) On March 30, 2009 at 1:11 PM, binve (29.06) wrote:

My idol is Captain Caveman.

Report this comment

#24) On March 30, 2009 at 1:15 PM, tonylogan1 (29.11) wrote:

ummm... Read the sentence Fleabagger... I said "I would GUESS" .. That is what makes it a GUESS... The fact I have no evidence whatsoever to support the claim.

I made up a hypothetical conspiracy theory, based on nothing... The market is boring righ now, and I require entertainment!

Now that I think about it more, it becomes clearer that I would guess FleaBagger is part of the Big Sugar alliance.

Report this comment

#25) On March 30, 2009 at 1:17 PM, arboretum (29.31) wrote:

Sugar is really bad for you, because it is a rare form of energy in pre-industrial food and usually associated with fruit, which is good for you (vitamins etc). So our bodies (we're all Captain Caveman genetically) are pre-programmed to seek it out. Putting vast amounts of sugar in food to make it taste better works, at the expense of dental health, diabetes, obesity and a lot of other problems.

Regular sugar is a glucose chemically linked to a fructose. HFCS is mostly free fructose with other free sugars including glucose. These "hexoses" are even rarer in nature, even more sweet, even more addictive and rapidly assimilated than regular sugar. There's also evidence that HFCS more likely to trigger diabetes than regular sugar because for the same amount

So. like EI, I try to avoid all forms of sweetened food, especially beverages and especially those that contain HFCS.

By the way, my understanding is that HFCS is cheaper to produce IN THE US than sucrose, but sucrose imported from Brazil is another issue entirely. Report this comment

#26) On March 30, 2009 at 1:19 PM, tonylogan1 (29.11) wrote:

The conspiracy grows...

I worry less about black helicopters showing up when I am complaining about the Federal Reserve. I hope it does not turn out that the Big Sugar Elite turn out to be the ones to take me out. (hides in bunker)

Report this comment

#27) On March 30, 2009 at 1:20 PM, MikeMark (31.46) wrote:

I tend to believe that we get enough sugars naturally. Therefore I drink very little soda. I tend to use honey as a direct sweetener in teas or on foods and in some cooking.  It's as natural as you can get and the price tends to make you use less. My wife & I use sucanat (unrefined natural sugar cane) for some cooking & standard sugar (which mostly comes from beets) for most cooked items.  Stevia is a good plant form sugar substitute that we keep on hand for friends who have sugar tolerance problems (diabetes). I don't have concrete research to back up any of this, just a 40+ lifetime of mostly health conscious experience.

Report this comment

#28) On March 30, 2009 at 1:30 PM, devoish (98.92) wrote:

The principle that guides me is to eat, "as close to nature" as possible. An organic orange is better than an orange, which is better than orange juice, which is better than orange drink. Because of that, I worry less about what is in the food I eat when I violate that principle. HFCS is something I look to specifically because we consume 10,000 times as much of it as we did 30 years ago and it is almost unavoidable. It is linked to obesity and a other health problems. I do  not "know" if that is due to the product itself or the quantity that is consumed, I suspect it is both.

When my kids do drink soda I prefer them to drink HFCS sweetened products rather than Aspartame sweetened diet products.

This article says that HFCS is bad in and of itself to some degree, but much more so to the amount we overdose it.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/11/13/corn-syrup-s-new-disguise.aspx 

The truth is, scientists have linked the rising HFCS consumption to the epidemics of obesity, diabetes and metabolic syndrome in the U.S., and medical researchers have pinpointed various health dangers associated with the consumption of HFCS compared to regular sugar. This is why the corn industry is now scrambling to save face and profits – NOT because it’s really okay to consume an average of 59 pounds a year of this stuff.

The American Medical Association issued a statement on June 17, 2008, stating that "high-fructose syrup does not appear to contribute more to obesity than other caloric sweeteners." However, they also recommend you limit the amount of ALL added caloric sweeteners to no more than 32 grams of sugar daily, which, by the way, comes out to just over 25.5 pounds of sugar per year.

(The article also links to a study that determined that fructose bypasses the liver and converts much more quickly to fat thta other types of sweeteners)

The AMA’s recommendation is over five-and-a-half-times less than the current yearly sugar consumption of the average American – which currently weighs in around 142 pounds a year -- but is still five times higher than my own recommendation of 5 pounds of added sugar per year.

Their evaluation that HFCS is not a major contributor to obesity is puzzling, considering the fact that the number one source of calories in America is soda, which contains about 40 grams of HFCS per can – more than the AMA’s recommended daily maximum for ALL caloric sweeteners.

And that’s without adding in all the corn syrup now found in every type of processed, pre-packaged food you can think of. In fact, the use of high fructose corn syrup in the U.S. diet increased a staggering 10,673 percent between 1970 and 2005, according to the latest USDA Dietary Assessment of Major Trends in U.S. Food Consumption report (whereas sucrose consumption declined by 38 percent), far exceeding changes in intake of any other food or food group.  

And what kinds of foods account for more than 90 percent of the money Americans spend on their meals? You guessed it: processed food.

Report this comment

#29) On March 30, 2009 at 1:33 PM, MrSucrose (< 20) wrote:

nottheSEC - I miss Cane Sugar pop, too.  Remember that the 8oz can and bottles was developed because sucrose was so expensive...

Report this comment

#30) On March 30, 2009 at 1:46 PM, RootnToot (31.20) wrote:

From a Consumers Reports dot Org Health Blog dated Oct-2008

"In 2004, researchers from the Louisiana State University and University of North Carolina published a paper that theorized that high-fructose corn syrup in beverages could play a role in the obesity epidemic. They looked at the correlation between the 1,000 percent increase in high-fructose corn syrup consumption between 1970 and 1990, and a correlating rise in obesity rates. Because of the way the body metabolizes fructose from beverages, the researchers argued, it may play a role in the obesity epidemic."

Ya, I guess; not that the rise of video games, video tape, cable televison, and personal computers during this time had any significant impact. Sheesh!

Report this comment

#31) On March 30, 2009 at 1:47 PM, FleaBagger (98.05) wrote:

Dang! Tony outed me as a Big Sugar spy. My FleaBagger identity is compromised. Oh well, I guess I still have my SpecBear identity.

Report this comment

#32) On March 30, 2009 at 1:48 PM, FleaBagger (98.05) wrote:

Oops! Nuts!

Report this comment

#33) On March 30, 2009 at 1:49 PM, Gemini846 (97.15) wrote:

Jones Cola bringing back the sugar. (JSDA:NASDAQ).

A few years back for lent I gave up processed sugar. I hate to say that I survived on fruit and tacos for a month but that was about it.

We drink a lot of things sweetened with surcrulose (Splenda) at the house now which seem to taste better and have less of a caloric impact than sugar or HFCS.

Don't get me wrong I love the taste of Coke but I can get a similar "burn" from organic grape juice which I love (but is also very high in calories).

Report this comment

#34) On March 30, 2009 at 1:53 PM, BradAllenton (33.05) wrote:

Sadly most of todays store bought food is poison, but it's profitable, so there is no good way to get around it. Our bodies can't cope with the amount of sugar we consume and our bodies only have one way of holding extra energy, FAT RESERVE. Someday it will all be looked at the same way we look at lead paint, asbestos, and mercury. We have to wait for the public at large to figure it out, so it will be a while. The learning curve is steep. Big money and big stupid will insure that the stored are stocked with poison for years to come.

Report this comment

#35) On March 30, 2009 at 1:59 PM, EverydayInvestor (< 20) wrote:

Here is a comment from a friend who know a bit about the subject and is not a CAPS member:

"Itried to reply to your post on the Fool but for some reason I couldn't get signed up.  I have a master's degree in nutrition along with publications so I'm pretty qualified to answer your question regarding the difference between HFCS and sucrose. There is very little difference between the two.  The term "high fructose" is misleading as the fructose content of HFCS is nearly identical to sucrose.  The only difference between the two is that the fructose and glucose are not bound in HFCS but they are bound in sucrose.  However, they are treated by the body as the same as sucrose is hydrolyzed to fructose and glucose once it enters the intestine. Studies have been done on this comparing the body's response to the two sugars and there is no difference. I wrote a blog about this very topic in the past here: http://blogs.proclub.com/blogs/2020insights/archive/2007/12/10/sugar-is-still-sugar.aspx"

Report this comment

#36) On March 30, 2009 at 2:05 PM, tonylogan1 (29.11) wrote:

Loved it!!! I am looking forward to a series of these non-gloom and doom, non-market related blogs...

This silly banter is making me feel better about losing money at the moment in the market...

I need a PPT rally by end of the day.

Also since I am now satisfied that FleaBag is unlikely a Sugar Spy, I am curious if I have not unwittingly been brought onboard the HFCS Advocacy Contingent, led by Everyday!

Report this comment

#37) On March 30, 2009 at 2:23 PM, EverydayInvestor (< 20) wrote:

This post has been good so far because we have lots of different opinions based on lots of different kinds of evidence. Even better (for my point) is that much of the reasoning is fallacious or the information wrong (some is good, though!). HFCS is a great way to examine our process of investigation because it is not necessary to know much about it to know what to do with it and we thus do not put much thought into it. Most people consume too many calories and too much sugar. The negative effects of sugar in general are well-established. So it does not matter if HFCS is as good or as bad as sucrose: we should endeavor to consume less!

So, time for me to burst a few misconceptions (I will post my thoughts on HFCS a little later):

1. HFCS is 'unnatural'. Actually, because HFCS is highly-refined, it contains almost entirely three ingredients: water, glucose, and fructose (there will be trace amounts of other random carbohyrdates, but nothing that is not normally found in food). All of these are normal parts of a human's diet. Want to use honey instead? It is far worse--it has similar concentrations of glucose and fructose (actually, slightly more fructose relative to the common HFCS 55) but with some botulism spores and other random things mixed in (which is why you should never feed honey to a young child). Unless you believe in the fundamentals of homeopathy (that even if nothing of a chemical remains, it still imparts some 'essence' to a carrier it has been in contact with) it is logically untenable to argue that something is worse because it is a product of a lab if it is chemically identical to a 'natural' chemical. (BTW, arsenic is also natural ...) Fructose is the main sugar in fruits! What could be more natural than that? Oh, and the body breaks down sucrose into glucose and fructose. So it is absurd to argue that HFCS is bad simply because it is processed or unnatural. 

2. Sucrose is just fructose and glucose so HFCS is no different than table sugar. Taking two distinct chemicals and bonding them together can produce a chemical with neither of its parents' properties. For example, bond two propane molecules and you turn a gas into a liquid (hexane!).

3. HFCS is bad because corn is bad. HFCS is just two simple sugars. Corn is mostly starches. Just because one thing comes from another does not mean they have similar properties. I can take hydrochoric acid (battery acid), add it to lye (also rather nasty), and make table salt!

4. We didn't evolve eating highly processed food and thus we should 'eat like cavement'. This argument has a lot going for it. I think it is easy to take this too far, though. We also did not evolve to invest in stocks and surf the internet, yet those don't hurt. Likewise, we did not evolve to drink wine yet it has health benefits in moderation.

 

 

 

 

Report this comment

#38) On March 30, 2009 at 2:36 PM, devoish (98.92) wrote:

Everyday,

Could you ask for your friends opinion on this information?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?orig_db=PubMed&db=pubmed&cmd=Search&term=%22The%20Journal%20of%20nutrition%22%5BJour%5D%20AND%202008%5Bpdat%5D%20AND%20Parks%5Bauthor%5D 

Other than the small size of the study, the results are 100% that fructose is converted directly to fat.

Report this comment

#39) On March 30, 2009 at 2:36 PM, saintmoritz (< 20) wrote:

"4. We didn't evolve eating highly processed food and thus we should 'eat like cavement'. This argument has a lot going for it. I think it is easy to take this too far, though. We also did not evolve to invest in stocks and surf the internet, yet those don't hurt. Likewise, we did not evolve to drink wine yet it has health benefits in moderation."

 

Stocks don't enter into this as we're talking about biology and the chemistry our bodies use to survive and thrive.  We may not have evolved to drink wine, but we did evolve to eat natural grapes.

I would never suggest that things we did not evolve to digest are automatically harmful (as I sit here enjoying the benefits of a 200mg ibuprofen pill.)  I simply believe that we need to base our diets on what we have evolved to assimilate.  I also believe, anecdotally, that most Americans base their diet on fried, high sugar, processed crap.

It's OK, though.  Have another basket of fries and a biggie Coke.  I don't need to be faster than the zombies, just faster than you. 

Report this comment

#40) On March 30, 2009 at 2:36 PM, briyan (32.57) wrote:

Just so we're on the same page, guys ... a 10,000 percent increase does not mean we consume 10,000X more, it means we consume 100X more.   Remember, it's "per cent" ... as in, "per 100" ... don't lose track of your decimal places =)

Report this comment

#41) On March 30, 2009 at 2:47 PM, EverydayInvestor (< 20) wrote:

Here are my thoughts on HFCS. I should amend this to add (thanks to James for mentioning this): that in an acidic solution, sucrose would be at least partially hydrolized into its components fructose and glucose; I am unsure how much this would actually occur without heat, though.

--

It looks like the evidence more the dangers of HFCS since I last looked at fructose/glucose (high-fructose corn syrup is about 55% fructose and 45% glucose) vs. sucrose (which is a disaccharide composed of bonded glucose / fructose). While the body breaks down sucrose into its components, that takes time and requires the action of the sucrase enzyme. So even though sucrose is made up of glucose and fructose it may have different effects on the body.   It appears that the effects are because of leptin-resistance that comes as a result of consuming lots of fructose (leptin regulates 'fullness' feelings). The one caveat is that I can't find any studies in humans that back this up -- they are all in mice. A couple studies in humans (which should be taken with a grain of salt due to funding by HFCS-related companies) have negative results; their methods did seem to be decent though (see http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0899900706003923and http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/86/1/116). A couple other studies that I don't think were funded by the industry showed negative results as well (http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/88/6/1733Sand http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/87/5/1194). There are a number of studies that do dumb (from a practical point of view) things like comparing fructose to glucose--which is not a choice anyone is facing--(for example: http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/jcem;89/6/2963). There are also some studies that show that fructose does some stuff, probably bad, but that don't compare its effects to sucrose: (http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/84/6/1374 and http://ajpregu.physiology.org/cgi/content/abstract/295/5/R1370). 

Anyway, the science is certainly compelling enough for me to believe that we should get rid of corn subsidies and sugar tariffs, but my ideology would lead me to those suggestions anyway. Also, staying away from sweets is always a good idea! I don't think we should ban HFCS, though.
See the Wikipedia article for some good stuff (including of course the citations, a few of which I read)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_fructose_corn_syrup

One of the mice studies I like was the following:Consuming Fructose-sweetened Beverages Increases Body Adiposity in Mice

Report this comment

#42) On March 30, 2009 at 2:51 PM, EverydayInvestor (< 20) wrote:

devoish (99.68) -- I can barely understand that. Anyway, it is irrelevant because it compares fructose to glucose and not to sucrose.

Report this comment

#43) On March 30, 2009 at 3:00 PM, EverydayInvestor (< 20) wrote:

saintmoritz (66.87)-- Actually, I wasn't harsh enough on the evolutionary viewpoint. Our ancestors did not evolve to eat much of what we eat today and consider natural and normal. We did not evolve to eat fish. Fishing came much later, after the advent of sophisticated tools like spears. The same can be said for all grains. We also did not evolve to eat all manner of fruits and vegetables that were not native to Africa.

Some cultural anthropologists believe that proto-humans were primarily scavengers, eating animals killed by predators. Would you advise us to all get 50% of our calories from meat?

Report this comment

#44) On March 30, 2009 at 3:04 PM, Melaschasm (64.53) wrote:

Generally when it comes to eating healthy I follow a simple guide.  I eat lean meats (including eggs and fish), fruits, vegetables, and dairy products like milk and cheese.  I try to buy items in their raw unproccessed state, or close to it. 

Unfortunately I am still trying to reduce the amount of rice, potatoes, cereals, grains, breads, and pastas.  While some of these are a part of a balanced diet, their cheap and filling nature has made them to high a percentage of my consumption. 

Speaking specifically to HFCS vs. Cane Sugar, I prefer cane sugar.  Cane sugar has less processing, and it tastes better. 

One of the things I find very annoying about HFCS is the huge amount of government subsidization of high fructose corn syrup.  One of the reasons why HFCS is added to so many products is because it is almost free to add to food after taking advantage of all the government subsidies, yet it adds both flavor and weight to the end product. 

Personally I am not a big fan of federal government subsidies, however, if we are going to subsidize food here in the USA (one of the fattest nations on earth), then we should at least subsidize lean meats, fruits, and vegies.  If we subsidized healthy foods, rather than subsidizing unhealthy foods, then we as a nation would eat better.

Report this comment

#45) On March 30, 2009 at 3:05 PM, nottheSEC (< 20) wrote:

EverydayInvestor (100.00) Yeah the Wikipedia was very helpful for citations. My questions is.. Whats wrong with beet sugar? Beets are easy to grow and are virtually bonded sucrose as is cane sugar. In any regard good topic.

Report this comment

#46) On March 30, 2009 at 3:14 PM, OleDrippy (56.70) wrote:

I like fries... and I like a nice big tub of popcorn and a diet coke (because I like the flavor better) at the movies. I am sick of people who like FLAVORFUL food being demonized. I am sure that it is healthier to eat grass and cauliflower, but guess what? Grass and cauliflower taste like ASS!! I may have a few extra pounds, but fortunately I live in 2009 and don't have to chase after my food with a spear.In the immortal words of Al Bundy:"You don't see cockroaches eating wheat germ" 

Report this comment

#47) On March 30, 2009 at 3:17 PM, saintmoritz (< 20) wrote:

"Actually, I wasn't harsh enough on the evolutionary viewpoint. Our ancestors did not evolve to eat much of what we eat today and consider natural and normal. We did not evolve to eat fish. Fishing came much later, after the advent of sophisticated tools like spears. The same can be said for all grains. We also did not evolve to eat all manner of fruits and vegetables that were not native to Africa.

Some cultural anthropologists believe that proto-humans were primarily scavengers, eating animals killed by predators. Would you advise us to all get 50% of our calories from meat?"

Agreed.  Agriculture itself did not play into our evolution as a species.  It's much too new, relatively speaking.  As individuals we could do just fine without corn or wheat, though human society probably couldn't as we have too many people.  We've moved beyond the population limiting pressures of natural selection, after all.

To answer your question, I don't advise anything as I'm not a nutritionist.  However, my investigations* lead me to believe we could certainly live on just meat, vegetables, and nuts.  Protein from meat, carbs from fruit, and fat from nuts... that's all you need.

 * See "Zone" & "Paleo" diets.

Report this comment

#48) On March 30, 2009 at 3:21 PM, saintmoritz (< 20) wrote:

"I am sick of people who like FLAVORFUL food being demonized. I am sure that it is healthier to eat grass and cauliflower, but guess what? Grass and cauliflower taste like ASS!! I may have a few extra pounds, but fortunately I live in 2009 and don't have to chase after my food with a spear."

Considering the extra cash it will take to keep you alive when you're a 400 lb senior citizen addicted to pharmacuticals, that's the health equivalent to the last eight years of US fiscal policy.  Spending cuts don't feel good.  Debt now and screw the future!

PS I'm hyperbolizing.  You might be very fit in your old age.  I'm just saying that looking to the future in health, as in finance, is prudent and wise.

Report this comment

#49) On March 30, 2009 at 3:22 PM, tonylogan1 (29.11) wrote:

So now I am more concerned that the true root of the conspiracy lies at the feet of the Farmers Union. We learned nothing from the boondoggle that is ethanol subsidization, so we will repeat its failures with HFCS and windmill subsidies, and dumbest of them all carbon tax credits.

Oh geeze.. this just makes me take the leap to the whole thing really just being part of a broader plan for a New World Order. Served up via your pick of tasty beverage.

 

Report this comment

#50) On March 30, 2009 at 3:30 PM, OleDrippy (56.70) wrote:

@ saintmoritz:

"PS I'm hyperbolizing.  You might be very fit in your old age.  I'm just saying that looking to the future in health, as in finance, is prudent and wise."                                                       

Agreed (I am actually rather young and in fairly good health).. Diabetis and the like should be avoided, but nitpicking every single food and putting a societal demand of uber fitness seems a bit over the top... 

Report this comment

#51) On March 30, 2009 at 3:35 PM, wrparks (63.55) wrote:

"We've moved beyond the population limiting pressures of natural selection, after all."

 

I'd say we are one pandemic flu from debunking that myth.

 

As for the rest of it, I'd say we can state that HFCS is making us fat.  Not because it's special or different from table sugar, but because we eat so darn much of it.  Replace it with cane sugar and keep prices the same and nothing changes.  

Report this comment

#52) On March 30, 2009 at 3:42 PM, threepaweddog (29.23) wrote:

I'm at work so I need to keep this short.  First, nice topic.  Second, a little off-topic regarding the caveman diet, I think basing any diet on what we have evolved eating is somewhat simplistic.  Yes, they likely ate carrion and scavenged, but they were doing it to maximize caloric intake and storage, not to lower their cholesterol.  For them it was largely the path of least resistance for calories, given their environment and technology (apparently laziness evolved early).  And our evolved metabolism is no doubt best suited for that diet for that purpose.  However, at the time of our African ancestors, longevity wasn't a consideration.  Now, most people are concerned about consuming food that allows them to live longer, which has to explain a lot of the nasty stuff I see at the local health food store.  So I think there can be a big difference in diet between what allowed our ancestors to survive in their environment versus what allows us to live long lives. 

I hope to read more discussion later.

Report this comment

#53) On March 30, 2009 at 3:43 PM, EverydayInvestor (< 20) wrote:

wrparks (69.83) --- yes, I agree. Even if HFCS is worse than sucrose, it is a small difference between two very bad things. Eat less sugar, less fat, fewer calories, and exercise more.

 

Report this comment

#54) On March 30, 2009 at 4:47 PM, ravali (66.27) wrote:

I know your trick, You're just trying get these poor sods to do the research for you ! J/k.

 

All I know is, any simple sugar is bad if taken in excess quantity (unless you're going for some serious calorie burning work) since they trigger an insulin response which "turns off" fat metabolization.

 

If you're fat and want to lose weight, its bad. Otherwise, its alright in moderate quantities. 

But I take your point! Quite nicely put.

Report this comment

#55) On March 30, 2009 at 4:47 PM, devoish (98.92) wrote:

devoish (99.68) -- I can barely understand that. Anyway, it is irrelevant because it compares fructose to glucose and not to sucrose.

In a very small study it basically says that HFCS created more fatty acids after digestion than corn syrup, which has no fructose, did.

So while I agree wholeheartedly that the quantity of sugars in general and especially the quantity of HFCS is the major obesity problem, this study says that the fructose contributes to the problem more than unrefined corn syrup, which is pure glucose, would.

You asked why I came to the conclusion to avoid HFCS, and this is one reason.

Report this comment

#56) On March 30, 2009 at 6:17 PM, vriguy (68.21) wrote:

From my biochemistry classes I recall that glucose and fructose are easily interconvertible in the body, and have essentially the same caloric value per gram.  Sucrose, which is made up of one fructose and one glucose is readily hydrolyzed into its components by digestive enzymes. Whether fructose or sucrose is consumed, it will be transformed into glucose prior to absorbtion.  There may be small differences in rates of absorbtion but taking lots of HFCS will be as bad for you as taking lots of table sugar (whether cane or beet). For a healthy diet, avoid both, or at least minimize your intake.

Report this comment

#57) On March 30, 2009 at 7:08 PM, rofgile (52.61) wrote:

The oral bacteria that are responsible for tooth decay can process sucrose (table sugar) but not glucose or fructose to make dextran.  This dextran is a sticky polymer on your tooth surface that builds the biofilm and lets other bacteria attach.  While sucrose, glucose, fructose, corn syrup, starches, etc can be metabolized to result in acid production - it is sucrose alone that is really going to result in a large amount of plaque leading to a cavity-generating biofilm on your teeth.

My advice - don't think that more natural is necessarily better.  If you replaced all your corn syrup foods with equivalent table sugar foods (sucrose), your teeth would likely be a lot worse.

My second advice - just drink tea.  Cut all soda out of your diet (it has sugars and is acidic anyways, and it is just a big mix of chemicals - not bad, but not good either - it is basically nutrition free ).  Buy loose leaf tea - you can drink it for about $0.05 / cup, way cheaper than soda.  Green tea has been shown to have positive effects relating to your perodontal tissues (protective against gingivitis), and it's high antioxidant levels could be beneficially for diseases such as heart disease, cancer, alzheimers, and others that have a correlation with free radicals in your body.  (Free radicals are deactivated by the antioxidant chemicals).

-Rof (a grad student in biology) 

Report this comment

#58) On March 30, 2009 at 7:09 PM, arboretum (29.31) wrote:

Another issue that didn't come up yet. The manufacture of HFCS involves the use of sodium hydroxide (lye) and hydrochloric acid (HCl). These are neutralized before the product is shipped and pose no health risk. However, up until fairly recently the producers of HFCS used a fairly low grade of lye and HCl. This low grade acid and alkali was produced in cells that use huge amounts of mercury, and the mercury was detected in a number of HFCS samples.

They should have got rid of it now, but if you have always drunk HFCS you probably got some mercury. 

Sugar, since it involves less chemicals and less processing, is probably less likely to acquire contamination from processing reagents.

Report this comment

#59) On March 30, 2009 at 7:14 PM, arboretum (29.31) wrote:

Since we're evidence-based, here's the peer-reviewed publication:

http://ehjournal.net/content/8/1/2

Report this comment

#60) On March 30, 2009 at 8:59 PM, EverydayInvestor (< 20) wrote:

If we are to follow evidence-based thinking, one worry we must always have is to consider conflicting evidence. In my comment above I mentioned various academic papers, some of which are conflicting. You cannot just look at one or two papers or one expert opinion and then be sure you 'know the truth'. There will always be disagreement among scientists about new research; as educated laypersons we must be even more careful than experts to avoid being too sure of ourselves. I think that is an important lesson to bring with us back to investing.

Report this comment

#61) On March 30, 2009 at 9:18 PM, EverydayInvestor (< 20) wrote:

and because I have no mercy:

Report this comment

#62) On March 30, 2009 at 9:32 PM, soycapital (59.60) wrote:

I think I am the opposite of you everyday because I go by the gut...the words high fructose corn syrup quickly bring a NO to my lips. I'll take sugar in moderation over all of the fake and or highly processed sweetners available on the market today. The chemical artificial sweetners should be on everyone's NO list. I believe them to be poison. But to each his own.

By the way, "evidence-based thinking" often works but where there is so little scientific understanding of things like human life all bets are off. In other words evidence based thinking may work okay for "concrete" studies but not for human life issues and such.

Report this comment

#63) On March 30, 2009 at 9:35 PM, Cynthia1770 (< 20) wrote:

Hi --My google alert for HFCS picked up your post. For the last two years I have been preaching the treachery of HFCS so my bias is clear. There are clear differences between sucrose and HFCS. Sucrose is a disaccharide composed of one molecule of fructose linked to one molecule of glucose. Sucrase, an enzyme secreted by our gut, cleaves the disaccharide and allows absorbtion of the monosaccharides, fructose and glucose, into the blood stream. HFCS is only a mixture of fructose and glucose. Corn syrup (pure glucose)  is coverted (isomerized) to fructose with an enzyme. The almost pure fructose syrup is then back blended with glucose to arrive at the desired fructose-glucose mixture. No regulatory enzyme is needed for its absorbtion into the blood stream, since the sugars are not linked.  An important difference is the fructose:glucose ratio. The Corn Refiners Assoc., CRA, hawks that HFCS is similar to sucrose. Let's look at the variant HFCS-55 which is used to sweeten soft drinks and other beverages. While its composition (55%fructose:45% glucose) appears to be just "5% different" than the composition of sucrose (50% fructose:50%glucose), it really isn't. Every ratio may be expressed as a quotient and calculated. Therefore 55/45=1.22.That means that every can of soda has, compared to glucose, 22% extra fructose. The metabolic dangers of fructose have been well documented.  The chemists at Archer-Daniels-Midland  and Cargill, producers of HFCS, must be aware of these numbers; they designed the ratio. For the CRA to say that HFCS-55 is similar to sugar is patently deceptive. HFCS-55 was designed to be fructose heavy. The most benign reason: the 55:45 ratio was the approximate sweetness of sucrose. A less benign reason would be that making the sweetener fructose heavy would make it super sweet so an end manufacturer would need less, or perhaps extra fructose would make the beverage sweetly addictive. Coca-cola made the switch to HFCS-55 in 1984 and we have been guzzling and getting fatter and sicker ever since. I strongly support Dr. Barry Popkin's original 2004 theory that long term ingestion of excess fructose has led to the obesity--> hyperinsulinemia-->metabolic syndrome--> type II diabetes pathway as well as the elevated triglycerides->LDL -->cardiovascular disease pathway. 

 My research has come from the following authors and papers: Dr. Mercola, Dr. Dana Flavin ("Metabolic Dangers of Fructose"), Dr. Michael Eades, Dr. Barry Popkin, Dr. Havel, Dr. Oz,  several CDC papers. A recent research review by Dr. Lane from Johns Hopkins University has shown how fructose as contrasted with glucose  does not elicit satiety signals in the brain.   

Ditch HFCS, especially HFCS-55. To your health.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

Report this comment

#64) On March 30, 2009 at 9:59 PM, GeneralDemon (75.76) wrote:

Quack?

Report this comment

#65) On March 30, 2009 at 10:10 PM, FleaBagger (98.05) wrote:

We also did not evolve to invest in stocks and surf the internet, yet those don't hurt.

I want to know which stocks you were invested in, Saint Moritz.

Report this comment

#66) On March 30, 2009 at 10:25 PM, FleaBagger (98.05) wrote:

Oops again! You were quoting EDI! Ha ha. I guess that makes sense. But as to investing in stocks not hurting, EDI is really just speaking for himself at this point.

Report this comment

#67) On March 30, 2009 at 10:32 PM, dcstrade (92.87) wrote:

I have an upper digestive disorder the doctors call GERD which I developed about 5 years ago.  Effects of this, for me, include strained, sometimes painful burping and heartburn.  Being 30, in great shape, and extremely frustrated about the complete lack of understanding doctors have on the subject, I had to research my own way back into health, mostly through trial and error.  The caveman diet has been the single most effective resolution to my problems, but any stray from this diet shows its effects immediately.  In other words, I have to be super-super-healthy to live the ordinary life I used to.  High Fructose Corn Syrup is just one of those ingredients that amplifies my GERD problems.  Between this and MSG, I've learned (the hard way) to reduce my intake of almost all snacks, soft drinks and processed foods found at any convenience store from my diet.  There are plenty of other irritants, such as Mayo, fatty fried foods, heavy pasta (that isn't whole grain or rice-based), and for me dairy as well.  When sticking purely to a diet of lean meats, fresh fruits and vegetables, and non-legume nuts like almonds, my symptoms slowly fade, until I eventually give in again.  My body's responses are enough evidence for me.

Report this comment

#68) On March 30, 2009 at 10:35 PM, nuf2bdangrus (< 20) wrote:

The problem is that our processed food consumption is so loaded with sugars and processed starches of various levels that diabetes and obesity are rampant.  Your liver converts HFC to fat.  The average American consumes massive a ounts of HFCS/year.  I always read labels and avoid foods (breads etc) that have it.

 Keep your sugar in your sweets and you will be able to enjoy them.

Report this comment

#69) On March 30, 2009 at 11:11 PM, stockrevealer (34.46) wrote:

Cramer works for the Media and makes his money that way. Jim Cramer cares only about one thing: you trading more! Why? Look at the commercials while he is on. Don't be stupid, Jim Cramer only wants you to trade so he can make more money.
As far as doing "homeworks" go to elementary school if you like homeworks because obviously you are absolutely clueless.
I am a CFA and also have a Masters in Finance. I also have a BA in International Development Studies from UCLA. I had years of micro, macro economics and years of finance.
I also have a minor in accounting.
In short: trust me when I tell you there is no homework to be have. Why?
The financial statements of companies are so corrupt, so massive, so complex that not even I can figure it out. And you think your "homework" will figure it out. Companies simply cook the books and what you think you are doing as "homework" is worthless because the numbers are big lie..you idiot!
And why do you think when you get a financial statement it looks more like a book??!! Because companies are hiding debt, problems, insider trading in all those little footnotes.

And in regard to Jim Cramer: He is very corrupt because he never goes back to the stocks he recommended that are now penny stocks...he always finds companies that trade above 20-50 dollars and when those companies prices go down he moves to other companies. I was stupid and once I listened to his advice. I bought UNG and $70 when he was saying BUY BUY BUY!!!! and now UNG is at $15.00.....keep listening to Jim Cramer if you want to LOSE LOSE LOSE you money!!!

Report this comment

#70) On March 30, 2009 at 11:56 PM, falang1 (98.24) wrote:

What the bleep was that?

I am pretty sure Cramer likes Everyday AND corn syrup.

Report this comment

#71) On March 31, 2009 at 5:13 AM, ralphmachio (28.24) wrote:

A little food for thought- Coke made with sugar tastes nothing like coke with hfcs.  Does anyone remember when they switched over to HFCS?  no you don't.  Why not?  Well, coke, that American icon, apparently didn't feel the need to let us choose.  They must have slowly introduced it by imperceptable increments, those sneaky s.o.b.s.  Hypothetically, HFCS could be safe, if our corn was safe.  A little independent research into Monsanto would reveal a whole world of info you might not even want to know about, considering they are about to push for legislation that will give us no organic choice.  That, combined with the cornering of the seed market, combined with the honey bee problem we may be looking at, could be the stage for the Ultimate Food Crisis.  Unfounded paranoid suspicion- Monsanto has something to do with Honey Bees Dying Off!  Then we would have no choice but to buy monsanto GMO seeds, and one company would control our fate, Monsanto!  I hope someone does some research on Monsanto, they are evil.

Report this comment

#72) On March 31, 2009 at 8:52 AM, EverydayInvestor (< 20) wrote:

A few more comments from my friend with the Masters in nutrition:

1.  You made this comment:  "While the body breaks down sucrose into its components, that takes time and requires the action of the sucrase enzyme. So even though sucrose is made up of glucose and fructose it may have different effects on the body." The time it takes for sucrase to break down sucrose into its components isn't an issue.  Sucrase is not only present in the intestine but in saliva as well.  Acid hydrolysis in the stomach will also contribute to sucrose breakdown.  Often, the speed at which a carbohydrate is broken down does not correlate with its structure or complexity.  Some complex carbohydrate have similar or higher GI's than monosaccharides and disaccharides. The glycemic response to sucrose and HFCS are pretty much identical: http://www.mendosa.com/gilists.htm The mean GI for sucrose across various studies is around 68.  While HFCS is not in this list, if you look at HFCS sweetened beverages such as Coke, you will se a GI of around 65.  

2.  In response to this comment: "A couple studies in humans (which should be taken with a grain of salt due to funding by HFCS-related companies) have negative results" 

Certainly a study funded by a HFCS company should raise a more skeptical eye.  However, it is not reason to completely write a study off.  There are many instances where a study may have been funded by a company, but they had no role in the data collection, analysis, or write-up. 

This was the case for me in my glutamine study, funded by EAS which sells glutamine as a supplement: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15107413?ordinalpos=3&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum Our results were mixed and we published them as such.  EAS had no role in any portion of the study. Given that other independent studies have also shown negative results when comparing HFCS to sucrose (as you pointed out), the weight of the evidence is towards little to no difference in regards to sucrose's or HFCS's effects on the body. 

3.  Somebody asked about this study in your blog: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?orig_db=PubMed&db=pubmed&cmd=Search&term=%22The%20Journal%20of%20nutrition%22[Jour]%20AND%202008[pdat]%20AND%20Parks[author] It is well known that fructose stimulates triglyceride formation in the liver.  However, this will be identical whether the fructose comes from HFCS or from sucrose. Also, the person says "100% of fructose is converted to fat".  In this study, 100% of the fructose was not converted to fat.  Triglyceride formation was definitely higher after fructose consumption, but this does not mean 100% of the fructose was used in triglyceride formation.  Also, this person seems to confuse body fat with triglycerides.  This study found an increase in blood triglyceride formation, not body fat formation.  Body fat formation only occurs when one is in an energy surplus (consuming more calories than one expends).  

4.  You made a GREAT point when you said this: "it is logically untenable to argue that something is worse because it is a product of a lab if it is chemically identical to a 'natural' chemical. (BTW, arsenic is also natural ...)" Ironically I've written blogs about this very topic: http://blogs.proclub.com/blogs/2020insights/archive/2007/09/14/artificial-vs-natural-wars.aspx http://blogs.proclub.com/blogs/2020insights/archive/2008/01/18/artificial-vs-natural-part-ii.aspx http://blogs.proclub.com/blogs/2020insights/archive/2008/08/15/artificial-natural-wars-episode-iii-return-of-the-sweeteners.aspx 

-- 

One more thing, in response to one of the latest comment by Cynthia1770.  She states: "Every ratio may be expressed as a quotient and calculated. Therefore 55/45=1.22.That means that every can of soda has, compared to glucose, 22% extra fructose." Cynthia is not calculating these numbers correctly.  A 55/45 mixture of fructose/glucose only contains 10% more fructose than a 50/50 mixture.  For every 25 grams of sugar, that is only 2.5 extra grams of fructose...certainly nothing substantial. 

Finally, soycapital states, "there is so little scientific understanding of things like human life all bets are off". IMO such a comment is simply absurd.  If what soycapital said was true, then we would not have the advances we've had in regards to immunization, near eradication of various infectious diseases that used to plague human society, dramatic improvements in human longevity, advances in the treatment of diseases such as heart disease and stroke, etc, etc, etc.  Also, if what soycapital said was true, then the more than 4 million scientific papers that have been written on the human body have done nothing to contribute to our knowledge.

Report this comment

#73) On March 31, 2009 at 11:08 AM, tally2007 (68.57) wrote:

Recently, I learned a great deal from a dear friend that has had two bouts with cancer and decided on the second go around (two different types) to go the alternative method. She did an enormous amount of research on her own and found that cancer cells thrive on sugar, which is the foremost reason to avoid high fructose corn sugar or any refined white sugar.

She is now on an all raw vegetable diet and is doing exceptionally well, after going to an alternative clinic in Atlanta for over a year.

Another thing she swears has been an enormous help is Natural Cellular Defense. I started taking these drops myself after seeing how well she was doing and because we're all exposed to toxins daily. If you would like to learn more go to my website Click Here

I hope you'll consider this precaution for your own health and for all of those you love. 

 

Report this comment

#74) On April 01, 2009 at 6:22 AM, MarkPerkins1 (< 20) wrote:

"ever wonder why the instances of cancers, allergies, and other auto-immune disorders have gone up over the years? "

 

 

-I don't have a strong opinion on this but I'm  guessing bc we are living longer for cancer. And there very well may have been high auto-immune disorders but we just didn't know about them then. I mean we barely even know some now.

Also, It's hard to get cancer when you die from common illness we have cures for now.  I know animals get cancer to so not sure how good that theory is

Report this comment

#75) On April 01, 2009 at 12:44 PM, Cynthia1770 (< 20) wrote:

Re: #72. Hi, Here I go again...defending my math. You are correct when you write that there is 10% more fructose in HFCS-55 than in sucrose. However, I am not comparing HFCS-55 to sucrose I am calculating the ratio of monosaccharides IN HFCS-55. If there is 55%fructose there must be less than 50% glucose since %fructose + %glucose MUST = 100. In this case there is 45% glucose (55+45=100). Therefore there is 55/45=1.22, or 22%  more fructose than glucose in a can of soda. The unexpected increase comes from the relationship, F/G vs. F, which is non-linear. Graph it and see, you'll get a curve not a straight line. Here's a thought--what if Cargill, a producer of HFCS made a slight mistake and brewed up HFCS-57 instead of HFCS-55. 57/43=1.32 ergo 32% more fructose than glucose. I like sugar, it's always 50:50.  

 

 

 

Report this comment

#76) On April 06, 2009 at 9:23 AM, Eudemonic (58.52) wrote:

EDI:  I first became aware of HFCS when I read an article in Men's Health trashing it. Now that I'm aware of it, I see that it is in so many foods including foods I don't necessary vision as needing to be sweet: e.g. bread, crackers.

Here's my evidence based thought.

HFCS is a sweetner, yet it appears in foods such as bread and crackers, that don't necessarily need to be sweet. 

Therefore, HFCS has other uses that that of a sweetner. 

My Occam's Razor conclusion: HFCS is also a preservative. Food processors use HFCS as a preservative as well as a sweetner. 

 

I don't consume products that contain HFCS.

Report this comment

#77) On April 06, 2009 at 9:23 AM, Eudemonic (58.52) wrote:

EDI:  I first became aware of HFCS when I read an article in Men's Health trashing it. Now that I'm aware of it, I see that it is in so many foods including foods I don't necessary vision as needing to be sweet: e.g. bread, crackers.

Here's my evidence based thought.

HFCS is a sweetner, yet it appears in foods such as bread and crackers, that don't necessarily need to be sweet. 

Therefore, HFCS has other uses that that of a sweetner. 

My Occam's Razor conclusion: HFCS is also a preservative. Food processors use HFCS as a preservative as well as a sweetner. 

 

I don't consume products that contain HFCS.

Report this comment

#78) On April 21, 2009 at 10:38 PM, europolis (< 20) wrote:

On a personal note, I stay away from soft drinks, but as an alternative when I do want something a bit sweet I take 1-2 oz. of unsweetened cranberry, pomegranate or blueberry juice and mix it with about 6-8 oz. of water, sparkling or even Pellegrino if it's on sale. This can still be up to 35 g of carb/sugars, two+ exchanges in diabetic speak. I tend to think of HFCS as empty calories with little food value. We neeed to chew, not drink our nutrition.

By the way, for those who might want some recent research on the subject, the December 2008 issue of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition has a supplement devoted to HFCS. It seems that some support the "sugar is sugar" argument and others the "HFCS goes straight to the fat factory" argument. Interesting reading though, even if you don't understand the chemistry behind it. I found these by searching Medline/PubMed.

Supplement: High-Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS): Everything You Wanted to Know, but Were Afraid to Ask:

Victor Fulgoni, III High-fructose corn syrup: everything you wanted to know, but were afraid to ask.
Am J Clin Nutr 2008 88: 1715S. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

John S White Straight talk about high-fructose corn syrup: what it is and what it ain't.
Am J Clin Nutr 2008 88: 1716S-1721S. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Kiyah J Duffey and Barry M Popkin High-fructose corn syrup: is this what's for dinner?
Am J Clin Nutr 2008 88: 1722S-1732S. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 

Kimber L Stanhope and Peter J Havel Endocrine and metabolic effects of consuming beverages sweetened with fructose, glucose, sucrose, or high-fructose corn syrup.
Am J Clin Nutr 2008 88: 1733S-1737S. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 

Kathleen J Melanson, Theodore J Angelopoulos, Von Nguyen, Linda Zukley, Joshua Lowndes, and James M Rippe High-fructose corn syrup, energy intake, and appetite regulation.
Am J Clin Nutr 2008 88: 1738S-1744S.

Report this comment

Blog Archive

2010

November (5)

2009

September (2) June (1) May (2) April (4) March (22) February (17) January (16)

2008

December (11) November (2) October (6) September (3) August (3) July (6) June (27) May (18) April (13) March (55) February (27) January (3)

2007

September (1) May (6) April (5) March (11) February (4)