Conspiracy Theories

[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.>

[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.

[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]

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

[Alex]

And now having read through the study (not that I've given it a deep read).

GD's post is still correct. This study did not use HFCS. It gave people additional amounts of pure glucose or pure fructose (they continued to eat just as they had before entering the study so they were likely still consuming plenty of sucrose and HFCS).

The study notes that in other research both sucrose (cane sugar) and HFCS have shown similar elevations of some bad things as they're seeing with fructose.

So, this actually does not provide any evidence against using sucrose over HFCS, to the extent that HFCS is condemned so is regular sugar. It does provide evidence for using glucose over fructose but that is not a choice we're presented with in the current marketplace.

Originally Posted by From the Study, bolding mine

While this study was designed to compare the biological effects of glucose and fructose consumption on lipid and carbohydrate metabolism, the potential implications of the results on public health is of interest. Foods and beverages in the US are typically sweetened with sucrose (50% glucose and 50% fructose) or high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS), which is usually 45%–58% glucose and 42%–55% fructose, rather than pure glucose or fructose. We have reported in a short-term study that the 23-hour postprandial TG profiles in male subjects consuming 25% energy as HFCS (55% fructose) or sucrose were elevated to a degree similar to that observed when pure fructose–sweetened beverages were consumed (19). Therefore, it is uncertain whether the adverse effects of sucrose and HFCS consumption are “diluted” by their lower fructose content relative to pure fructose. Additional studies are needed to compare the long-term effects of consuming HFCS and/or sucrose with 100% fructose.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by Alex

GD's post is still correct.

Quoted for vanity.

[Kevy Baby]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

Quoted for vanity.

I didn't know she read LoT