High Fructose Corn Syrup

[Cowgirl]

But we are not talking about product weight - we are talking about caloric value. Yes, you will have to eat an awful lot of celery to get to 3,500 calories. And I think celery is actually a negative because you burn more calories chewing and digesting it than you consume. So that's not a good comparison, unless you just sit around eating celery all day, which creates its own health problems.

3,500 calories is 3,500 calories, no matter where it comes from.

The difference isn't with the number of calories in HFCS, it's how it is metabolized.

High-fructose corn syrup and sucrose are both compounds that contain the simple sugars fructose and glucose, but there are at least two clear differences between them. First, sucrose is composed of equal amounts of the two simple sugars -- it is 50% fructose and 50% glucose -- but the typical high-fructose corn syrup used in this study features a slightly imbalanced ratio, containing 55% fructose and 42% glucose. Larger sugar molecules called higher saccharides make up the remaining 3% of the sweetener. Second, as a result of the manufacturing process for high-fructose corn syrup, the fructose molecules in the sweetener are free and unbound, ready for absorption and utilization. In contrast, every fructose molecule in sucrose that comes from cane sugar or beet sugar is bound to a corresponding glucose molecule and must go through an extra metabolic step before it can be utilized. In the 40 years since the introduction of high-fructose corn syrup as a cost-effective sweetener in the American diet, rates of obesity in the US have skyrocketed, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In 1970, around 15% of the US population met the definition for obesity; today, roughly one-third of the American adults are considered obese.

Link

 

[Cowgirl]

Tell that to the poor people who are having a hard time buying their groceries now. Or should we just increase their WIC and welfare payments to make up for it? Maybe say to hell with them and let them starve? Switch to beans and rice like they do in third-world countries, so the food Nazis can start complaining about that?

I mean, what?

How many of our tax dollars are going for things like corn subsidies? And maybe we should revamp our whole food stamp/WIC program to only allow for healthy food and no processed crap. I mean, unless you want to keep poor people on ####ty food...

The only reason food seems so cheap now is because of corn and the subsidies.

 

[Merlin99]

But we are not talking about product weight - we are talking about caloric value. Yes, you will have to eat an awful lot of celery to get to 3,500 calories. And I think celery is actually a negative because you burn more calories chewing and digesting it than you consume. So that's not a good comparison, unless you just sit around eating celery all day, which creates its own health problems.

3,500 calories is 3,500 calories, no matter where it comes from.

I didn't say a "pound" of XXX, versus a pound of YYY, I said 3,000-something calories of XXX is no different than 3,000-something calories of YYY.

3K calories of butter might be 2 sticks. 3K calories of celery is probably a laundry basket full.

Sorry, misinterpreted what was said.

 

[lnmarsh]

See, and I don't subscribe to the "there's too much of it, so that must be bad" line of thinking. Corn is a product, like anything else. You cannot feed cattle on grass alone because it's not sustainable, not as much beef as we go through in this country. I don't see the problem with corn fuel at all.

I also question whether or not good quality grass, hay, etc. is abundant enough to sustain the agriculture that the American population consumes. I also don’t see a problem with it being used as fuel. I actually think that using it as fuel might be a good thing… cut down on natural resources (oil, etc) being used AND possibly cut down on the amount that is fed to livestock.

Corn, like soy, is easy to grow, cheap and abundant. That's why we use it instead of crops that are hard to grow, expensive, and in limited production. It just makes more sense. And if we start messing with that, we make all sorts of products more expensive, which will bring on a new set of problems.

Abundant and easy to grow = yes. Cheap = not quite. American tax dollars make it cheap.

Corn is like the new DDT. There's been nothing wrong with it, no problems, then some hippie came along and demonized it, with adverse results and unintended consequences.

Umm… well actually there was a problem with DDT. DDT in small amounts few and far between is OK. But to use it over and over again messes with our precious birds of prey. It makes the egg shells so soft that when momma bird goes to lay on them, they crack. DDT highly contributed to the almost extinction of the peregrine falcon, the fastest bird on earth (when in a dive).

That’s a total sidenote and very off topic, but I just wanted to point out that the “hippie”’s issues with DDT weren’t all BS.

Was there any research done to come to this opinion or did you just pick the anti cane sugar side and go with it? Cane sugar contain lactose, sucrose, and fructose, the first two cause the body to produce the hormone leptin which causes the hypothalmus to to signal that you are getting full. Without this signal the only way your body knows you're getting full is because it has become uncomfortable (like the feeling of a large gas bubble). So the difference is drink a cane sugar sweetened soda and you feel full, drink a HFCS sweetened soda and you don't.

::sigh:: I miss biology class…

Tell that to the poor people who are having a hard time buying their groceries now. Or should we just increase their WIC and welfare payments to make up for it? Maybe say to hell with them and let them starve? Switch to beans and rice like they do in third-world countries, so the food Nazis can start complaining about that?

I mean, what?

Maybe we should... maybe then they'd go get jobs

Im kidding. Please don’t anyone get all on me

 

[Larry Gude]

Tell that to the poor people who are having a hard time buying their groceries now. Or should we just increase their WIC and welfare payments to make up for it? Maybe say to hell with them and let them starve? Switch to beans and rice like they do in third-world countries, so the food Nazis can start complaining about that?

I mean, what?

Think about what you are saying; Subsidize corn or subsidize poor people.

The subsidies to corn go to massive corporations that have helped put the small farmer out of business and make it very prohibitice for any newcomer to get land and get into farming. Our quest for cheap is a false god. Cheap corn costs lots of money. It costs in terms of subsidies and it costs in terms of loss of small business. How would the poor do if more of them could farm? How would they do if the government wasn't consuming tax dollars to give to corporations to make food cheap and competition impossible?

:shrug:

 

[Cowgirl]

Twenty years ago, American consumers spent 11.7 percent of their disposable income on food. Thirty years ago, that figure was 15.1 percent. Going back in history, Americans spent about 20 percent of their income on food about the time today's baby boomers were born. In 1933, the figure was more than 25 percent.

While the low percentage spent on food is good news for American consumers, it has not necessarily translated well to the producer. On average, farmers get back less than 20 cents of every dollar paid by the consumer. The balance primarily goes to processors, wholesalers, and retailers.

Producers receive less than half of what they used to get from the food dollar. In 1950, they received 41 cents out of each dollar. As recently as 1980, that figure was still as high as 31 cents.

Link

Food is probably the most important thing we can spend money on, yet most Americans just buy whatever food is the cheapest.

 

[vraiblonde]

This really is simple:

You all who are anti-corn...don't eat it. Don't eat anything sweetened with corn syrup, don't eat anything with corn filler or binder, don't eat anything processed with corn.

It can be done. But it will mean giving up most packaged foods, that you can easily make from scratch at home anyway so that shouldn't be a deal breaker.

But it really is annoying when someone gets a bugaboo about a specific food product, then tries to make it everyone else's problem. No different than the salt Nazis in NYC, or the fat Nazis in our government.

 

[Cowgirl]

This really is simple:

You all who are anti-corn...don't eat it. Don't eat anything sweetened with corn syrup, don't eat anything with corn filler or binder, don't eat anything processed with corn.

It can be done. But it will mean giving up most packaged foods, that you can easily make from scratch at home anyway so that shouldn't be a deal breaker.

But it really is annoying when someone gets a bugaboo about a specific food product, then tries to make it everyone else's problem. No different than the salt Nazis in NYC, or the fat Nazis in our government.

You must have an issue with reading comprehension.

And you're right, it is simple. Who needs packaged foods, anyway?

And I fail to see how informing the public of the food insustry so that people can make informed choices is a bad thing? Oh wait, maybe you prefer to let the 4 major corporations that control our food industry tell us what's good for us. Maybe you prefer for the government to tell us what's safe and what's not.

 

[Nickel]

This really is simple:

You all who are anti-corn...don't eat it. Don't eat anything sweetened with corn syrup, don't eat anything with corn filler or binder, don't eat anything processed with corn.

It can be done. But it will mean giving up most packaged foods, that you can easily make from scratch at home anyway so that shouldn't be a deal breaker.

Thank you for your permission.

 

[Pete]

The difference isn't with the number of calories in HFCS, it's how it is metabolized.



Link

In your quote is says :

In the 40 years since the introduction of high-fructose corn syrup as a cost-effective sweetener in the American diet, rates of obesity in the US have skyrocketed, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In 1970, around 15% of the US population met the definition for obesity; today, roughly one-third of the American adults are considered obese.

Isn't it arguable that the skyrocketing obesity rates could be caused by the explosion of fast food, all you can eat buffets, Cinnabon stands in malls, cookies the size of hub caps, IE the easy and abundant availability of mass quantities of high calorie foods and the modification of American eating habits in respnse to that increaded availability?

 

[vraiblonde]

Umm… well actually there was a problem with DDT. DDT in small amounts few and far between is OK. But to use it over and over again messes with our precious birds of prey. It makes the egg shells so soft that when momma bird goes to lay on them, they crack. DDT highly contributed to the almost extinction of the peregrine falcon, the fastest bird on earth (when in a dive).

And banning DDT contributed to almost 250 million cases of malaria in humans, and just under 1 million deaths, most of which were children under 5.

I mean, pick it - birds or humans. :shrug:

Like I said, unintended consequences because people react emotionally and don't think things through before they get wrapped up in their causes.

 

[vraiblonde]

In your quote is says :

Isn't it arguable that the skyrocketing obesity rates could be caused by the explosion of fast food, all you can eat buffets, Cinnabon stands in malls, cookies the size of hub caps, IE the easy and abundant availability of mass quantities of high calorie foods and the modification of American eating habits in respnse to that increaded availability?

Not to mention our extremely reduced activity level.

See? Junk science. You can make it say whatever you want it to say.

 

[pixiegirl]

In your quote is says :

Isn't it arguable that the skyrocketing obesity rates could be caused by the explosion of fast food, all you can eat buffets, Cinnabon stands in malls, cookies the size of hub caps, IE the easy and abundant availability of mass quantities of high calorie foods and the modification of American eating habits in respnse to that increaded availability?

In contrast isn't much of what we eat healthier because we're more aware of the effects of poor nutrition? I'd venture to say that my pot roast has less fat than my grandma's. :shrug:

 

[Cowgirl]

In your quote is says :

Isn't it arguable that the skyrocketing obesity rates could be caused by the explosion of fast food, all you can eat buffets, Cinnabon stands in malls, cookies the size of hub caps, IE the easy and abundant availability of mass quantities of high calorie foods and the modification of American eating habits in respnse to that increaded availability?

It could be caused by lots of things. I'm not saying HFCS is the whole reason AMerica is obese.


I really don't care at all what people eat. If they want to eat nothing but Cheetos and soda that's fine with me. I just want our nation to be more informed about what they're eating. Our food industry is very deceptive and secretive, and there are lots of things we don't know about what we're eating. I just wish we cared more.

And I do not think it's wrong for us to question what we're told.

 

[Baja28]

This is one of the most interesting and informative threads I've read.

 

[Cowgirl]

In contrast isn't much of what we eat healthier because we're more aware of the effects of poor nutrition? I'd venture to say that my pot roast has less fat than my grandma's. :shrug:

Isn't it funny that as a nation we're obsessed with being healthy, but 1/3 of us are obese?

 

[Larry Gude]

In your quote is says :

Isn't it arguable that the skyrocketing obesity rates could be caused by the explosion of fast food, all you can eat buffets, Cinnabon stands in malls, cookies the size of hub caps, IE the easy and abundant availability of mass quantities of high calorie foods and the modification of American eating habits in respnse to that increaded availability?

Pete, come on. What had happened to food since we were kids? It is far cheaper, far more readily available, far more tasty things to eat and one of the primary reasons for this is corn.

I'm no food Nazi. My only interest here is the subsidy part, the corporate welfare, because very often it does not serve the interests of the people. Cheap food is great. Losing the family farm, not so much.

Again, the clear contradiction is the thing here. Most of us do like handouts to layabouts. Let 'em go earn it. We should not like handouts to megacorps for the exact same reasons. Let them go earn it instead of subsidies helping them eliminate competition.

Like smoking, we all are responsible for putting down the cheeseburger. So, my issue is the subsidy.

 

[pixiegirl]

Isn't it funny that as a nation we're obsessed with being healthy, but 1/3 of us are obese?

My point was you can't blame obesity on the availability of junk food when we're far more informed than we ever were. Obesity for most is a choice. I'm a food nazi like you.

 

[vraiblonde]

In contrast isn't much of what we eat healthier because we're more aware of the effects of poor nutrition? I'd venture to say that my pot roast has less fat than my grandma's. :shrug:

Your grandma probably didn't eat french fries, Twinkies and potato chips in addition to her pot roast. And your grandma probably didn't work a desk job where the most exercise she got all day was typing on a computer.

Obesity in America has many contributing factors - it's not all corn's fault.

 

[Pete]

Think about what you are saying; Subsidize corn or subsidize poor people.

The subsidies to corn go to massive corporations that have helped put the small farmer out of business and make it very prohibitice for any newcomer to get land and get into farming. Our quest for cheap is a false god. Cheap corn costs lots of money. It costs in terms of subsidies and it costs in terms of loss of small business. How would the poor do if more of them could farm? How would they do if the government wasn't consuming tax dollars to give to corporations to make food cheap and competition impossible?

:shrug:

Small farmers went by the wayside because of increases in efficiency. Large "farmers" embraced technology, analysis and had the wherewithal to make capital investments in technology, process improvements and risk avoidance like irrigation.

Like any other industry some people looked at the orange and peeled it the old fashioned way, some peeled 20% more oranges using a new technique and investment in studying the orange, and buying the mechanism to peel the orange. Payback on that capitol expediture was 5 years. 6 years later the small orange peeler was out of business. :shrug:

subsidies helped the little guy as much as anyone back in the day.