Conspiracy Theories

[Kevy Baby]

Originally Posted by Strangler Lewis

Voila!

Viola!

Spoiler:

[flippyshark]

Very good, then, sca. No, no, i'm sure you're completely sane. <smiles and backs away slowly as he picks up the secret red phone to contact the Illuminati and the gnomes of zurich and warn them.>

[Betty]

Small study on HFCS:

http://consumerist.com/2009/12/study...t-disease.html

Over 10 weeks, 16 volunteers on a strictly controlled diet, including high levels of fructose, produced new fat cells around their heart, liver and other digestive organs. They also showed signs of food-processing abnormalities linked to diabetes and heart disease. Another group of volunteers on the same diet, but with glucose sugar replacing fructose, did not have these problems.
People in both groups put on a similar amount of weight. However, researchers at the University of California who conducted the trial, said the levels of weight gain among the fructose consumers would be greater over the long term.

[mousepod]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

There is simply no scientific evidence to support his claim.

The body processes fructose differently than other sugars (such as glucose). However, high fructose corn syrup is not pure fructose. It's 55% fructose, 45% glucose. Regular table sugar (cane sugar and beat sugar) is sucrose, which is a chemical composition of glucose and fructose, a molecule of sucrose being composed of 1 molecule of each. There is a notable chemical difference in that HFCS is a mixture of the two (i.e., they remain separate molecules) while in table sugar the glucose and fructose molucles are chemically bonded. However the Sucrose is broken up basically contact with stomach acid (actually, since your saliva is slightly acidic, the reaction begins before you even swallow) into its component glucose and fructose molecules. Therefore, by the time you're actually digesting anything, they are virtually identical products.

All the data that people point to about the supposedly negative effects of HFCS are studies done with 100% fructose and is therefore completely irrelevant to the matter. There have been no studies that show any difference between the bodies reaction to HFCS and sucrose. Has it been ruled out? No, I don't think there have been enough studies. But I guarantee that, anecdotal experiences aside, no one who makes claims of negative effects of HFCS have any relevant studies that back it up, only studies on pure fructose.

Originally Posted by Betty

Small study on HFCS:

Over 10 weeks, 16 volunteers on a strictly controlled diet, including high levels of fructose, produced new fat cells around their heart, liver and other digestive organs. They also showed signs of food-processing abnormalities linked to diabetes and heart disease. Another group of volunteers on the same diet, but with glucose sugar replacing fructose, did not have these problems.
People in both groups put on a similar amount of weight. However, researchers at the University of California who conducted the trial, said the levels of weight gain among the fructose consumers would be greater over the long term.

This is why I find it difficult to participate in these kind of conversations.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by Betty

Small study on HFCS:

http://consumerist.com/2009/12/study...t-disease.html

As a follow up, completely independent of this thread ran into someone else talkign about this and ended up at a blog where the lead researcher on this paper (Kimber Stanhope) posted criticism of the Times story referenced in the Consumerist piece, saying that essentially every sentence contains a fundamental inaccuracy in paraphrasing the study.

This is why, except for a few trusted science journalists I pretty much assume any science story in the newspaper is worthless.

[Disneyphile]

GD, you made excellent points.

I also suppose "watchdog" means something a bit different to me. I'm totally for management organizations, such as the FDA, etc. It's the "activist" groups. (i.e. PETA trying to have meat removed from school lunches, etc.)

[alphabassettgrrl]

Extremism is easy, it's dramatic, and it gets a lot of attention. I think things like "Super Size Me" and "Fast Food Nation" are meant to shock people into recognizing their patterns, that while burgers are ok as a sometimes food, these targeted audiences are eating it all the time. These people need a slap in the face to "get" it. Moderation (while rational) is something they ignore if at all possible.

Personally, the evil in corporations and HFCS that I see are due to scale. If it were on a smaller scale, no problem, but these things are big enough to crowd out other options and that's what I dislike.

[Kevy Baby]

Originally Posted by alphabassettgrrl

Extremism is easy, it's dramatic, and it gets a lot of attention.

And sadly, it is the only thing that the majority of the people pay attention to.

[alphabassettgrrl]

Originally Posted by Kevy Baby

And sadly, it is the only thing that the majority of the people pay attention to.

Thus the popularity.

And the driving insane of regular people.

[Alex]

If you want to read the full study, it is here.