Conspiracy Theories

[BarTopDancer]

I don't see the examples being conspiracy theories, instead being propaganda for an agenda.

HFCS - Aids corn farmers and "supports" our economy, and is no different than cane sugar.

Personally, without reading any of the effects I know that *I* feel better if I don't consume products with HFCS in them. I don't avoid them like the plague; if I want a soda I'll drink a soda. If I'm out to eat and want ketchup with my fries I'll have ketchup. But I know products with HFCS in them make me feel sluggish (all products). Most people who I know don't think HFCS is horrible/evil but their body does process it differently then sugar and the effects are different.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by BarTopDancer

Most people who I know don't think HFCS is horrible/evil but their body does process it differently then sugar and the effects are different.

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.

[€uroMeinke]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

There is simply no scientific evidence to support his claim.

But I think that's the issue - people make decisions on what they feel and then find ways to justify it. Perhaps it's the other crap in processed foods that make people feel bad, perhaps its guilt for eating crappy food - HFCS ends up sounding like a reasonable explanation/scapegoat. Same with evil corporations, fascist conservatives, Nazi liberals, and God.

[Tref]

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.

Hey, how about dumbing that down, Eisenstein.

[Disneyphile]

Originally Posted by BarTopDancer

I don't see the examples being conspiracy theories, instead being propaganda for an agenda.

I see them as the same thing, really... ideas that are stretched to provoke shocked reactions.

I'm right there with you on the HFCS thing though - my body personally feels better when consuming sugar than HFCS.