High fructose corn syrup?

[Huntsman]

Is high fructose corn syrup really as damaging as some reports make out?

Is it one of the causes of the diabetic epidemic?

[roboxm3]

Depends what you read and who you listen to.
That Lustig(?) bloke is convinced and has some pretty strong arguments to suggest that it's certainly not done us much good.
I agree on the whole, that the widespread use of HFCS in food manufacturing is a bad thing but then again, if people weren't lazy and made more food / meals from scratch then it wouldn't be such an issue.
I think that the combination of the rise in popularity / consumption of 'convenience foods' and the introduction of HFCS has certainly helped us become (on average) a bit fatter.

[markcoznottz]

Follow the $. Another american import. Easy way of making sugar from corn, but it is synthetic, like margerine. There are some worrying reports on it if you google.

[Nimby]

markcoznottz said:

... it is synthetic, like margerine.

Fructose made from maize is absolutely identical in every way to that found naturally in fruit and honey; it's a simple chemical after all.

However the main problem with it is that, unlike glucose, uptake is not regulated by insulin. It has to be dealt with by the liver; too much can result in insulin resistance and diabetes. There was a feature article on this a week or so ago in New Scientist.

[grumbledoak]

HFCS is just sugar as far as your body is concerned. Same fructose (55% or 42%). Same addictive properties too. Previously sugar was too expensive to put into everything, but now there is competition sugar is cheaper, and HFCS is cheaper still.

[Flibble]

Usually called glucose-fructose syrup on UK labelling. It's somewhat common but much less so than sugar as there are very restrictive import and production limits on it in the EU (big sugar lobby = no HFCS). The US by contrast has tariffs on sugar and cheap corn which make HFCS a cheaper option.

As for health it's not much different to normal sugar; sugar is 50/50 glucose/fructose, HFCS is usually 45/55 glucose/fructose or 58/42 glucose/fructose. Both variants are similar enough to sugar to have similar physiological effects.

[davepoth]

markcoznottz said:

Follow the $. Another american import. Easy way of making sugar from corn, but it is synthetic, like margerine. There are some worrying reports on it if you google.

And actually, it's not really that economical. The only reason it's so cheap compared to proper sugar in the USA is the protectionist import duty used to protect farmers there.

[Flibble]

markcoznottz said:

Follow the $. Another american import. Easy way of making sugar from corn, but it is synthetic, like margerine. There are some worrying reports on it if you google.

There's worrying reports on everything if you look hard enough. Neither marge nor HFCS are that "synthetic" being largely made of vegetable oil and corn respectively.

Slightly odd that if enzymes in bees' stomachs turn glucose into glucose-fructose syrup (i.e. honey) it's natural, but if you use enzymes in a commercial plant to do the same it's "synthetic" and "bad".

[pteron]

The problem is not whether it is natural or not, it's that we evolved to love the sweet taste because it was incredibly rare - relatively low sugar fruit was available occasionally and honey was protected by bees. We didn't evolve to have a huge sugar kick every day.

[AJS-]

My understanding of it is that while it is "just" sugar, sugar isn't that good for you in the first place and HFCS is often used in sugar free products to give the illusion of them being healthy.

Also while it is natural the same as you would get from eating corn itself, a can of coke full of HFCS is like eating a few kilos of corn.

Lastly the extraction process has words I don't understand and chemicals I don't know anything about. Not a very high bar I admit but worth avoiding for the most part.

[Mojooo]

I reduced my sugar intake by an estimated 30g a day by having no more sugar in my cups of tea.

I have also been more concious of sugar in shop bought foods and tried to avoid it.

I have noticed very big changes in my weight (i.e it is going down much quicker)

Once thing everyone should do is weigh out 2 or 5g of sugar - its alarming when you go to the shop - see an everyday snack and realise it has bloody 20g of sugar in it and what that atcually looks like on a spoon!

It is not possible on UK foods to necessarily what type of sugar is being used as far as I can work out.

[AJS-]

Only thing I've found effective is to only eat meat and fresh fruit and vegetables. Plenty of sugar in fruit.

Any sauces, cured meats or other pre prepared foods will be loaded with sugar, vegetable oil and other rubbish I would rather not eat.

[Huntsman]

All very interesting, I hadn't realised the similarity between HFCS and Honey.

It certainly affected my weight when I cut out processed sugar from my diet.

[J4CKO]

American drinks are laden with it, our stuff is bad enough but had a bottle of Sunkist over there, it got warm and it was like chugging jam, evil stuff.

Sweet stuff should be an occasional treat, trying to educate a young lady in our office (fnarr) as she drinks energy drinks and eats just sweets and other nonesense as a staple, not an occasional exception, seems to be working, she is eating fruit !

[ewenm]

J4CKO said:

American drinks are laden with it, our stuff is bad enough but had a bottle of Sunkist over there, it got warm and it was like chugging jam, evil stuff.

Sweet stuff should be an occasional treat, trying to educate a young lady in our office (fnarr) as she drinks energy drinks and eats just sweets and other nonesense as a staple, not an occasional exception, seems to be working, she is eating fruit !

Fruit is high-sugar too (unless my sarcasm meter is broken).

[grumbledoak]

ewenm said:

Fruit is high-sugar too (unless my sarcasm meter is broken).

SWMBD has the same blind spot. There is no telling her. It's "natral" just seems to work on some folk.

[Halb]

It's still good for fatties to swap though. Benefits of fruit?
Takes time to eat rather than glug, fibre slows down the release of sugar and it fills you up and helps the ole poop chute, it's win win!

[J4CKO]

ewenm said:

J4CKO said:

American drinks are laden with it, our stuff is bad enough but had a bottle of Sunkist over there, it got warm and it was like chugging jam, evil stuff.

Sweet stuff should be an occasional treat, trying to educate a young lady in our office (fnarr) as she drinks energy drinks and eats just sweets and other nonesense as a staple, not an occasional exception, seems to be working, she is eating fruit !

Fruit is high-sugar too (unless my sarcasm meter is broken).

Nope, no sracasm, just noticed how a bottle of pop seemed impossibly, overpoweringly sweet over there and just very sweet over here, fruit obviusly has sugar in it, but generally it is as nature made it (to make animals eat it and poop out the seeds), and not contrived by marketing men to make people crave it, otherwise there would be fatties all gorging themselves on fruit when they avoid it, think its down to the cravign for fat and sugar at the same time and according to that documentary nothign in nature really does that, either sugary or fatty.

[Halb]

It's true, natural food is either one or t'other.

[dandarez]

Flibble said:

Usually called glucose-fructose syrup on UK labelling. It's somewhat common but much less so than sugar as there are very restrictive import and production limits on it in the EU (big sugar lobby = no HFCS). The US by contrast has tariffs on sugar and cheap corn which make HFCS a cheaper option.

As for health it's not much different to normal sugar; sugar is 50/50 glucose/fructose, HFCS is usually 45/55 glucose/fructose or 58/42 glucose/fructose. Both variants are similar enough to sugar to have similar physiological effects.

That sounds too vague, please define 'normal' sugar.

Is 'normal' that refined white crap (or brown crap) which most people assume as 'normal',
or is 'normal' (proper) raw unrefined sugar?