[TopPop]

I think Americans are making themselves hefty.

 

[revolink24]

^^Agreed. HFCS is no more than a synthetic sugar.

 

[milkweg]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dallan /img/forum/go_quote.gif Bummer, sorry to hear that. Well you do what you can with what you have.

Thanks for the condolences. I'm still doing OK. It could be life threatening if I got a blood clot from it and it traveled to my heart but that hasn't happened yet. Obviously.

 

[milkweg]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ericj /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'm not particularly worried.

You should be. Taking all these antibiotics into our system causes our bodies to build up an immunity to them. That means they have to keep developing new antibiotics that we are not immune to. Run out of that and we have no way to fight disease and has the potential to wipe out much of mankind.

 

[milkweg]

Quote:

Originally Posted by revolink24 /img/forum/go_quote.gif ^^Agreed. HFCS is no more than a synthetic sugar.

It's already been explained why synthetic is bad for you. Our bodies can't process it properly. Go back to the beginning of the thread.

 

[ericj]

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkweg /img/forum/go_quote.gif You should be. Taking all these antibiotics into our system causes our bodies to build up an immunity to them. That means they have to keep developing new antibiotics that we are not immune to. Run out of that and we have no way to fight disease and has the potential to wipe out much of mankind.

Uhm.

When penicillin was originally isolated, it was the first time we used beta lactam rings as an antibiotic.

The bacteria that were common to the human population at the time had never seen anything like a beta lactam ring, and the use of penicillin was wildly successful.

But bacteria breed and mutate at a furious pace - some mutations are beneficial and some are not.

Beta lactam rings inhibit cell wall growth in bacteria.

Bacteria communicate with each other - sort of - by shooting out little pieces of RNA.

It turns out that bacteria can evolve the ability to produce strands of beta lactamase and shoot those out outstead. These are like little knives that chop up the beta lactam rings.

This is an example of what they call a 'resistant strain'.

So we've developed antibiotics like ceftin that have a beta lactamase inhibitor attached to them - this is like catching the knife that has been thrown at you.

And so goes the arms war with bacteria - but it's not as though every streptococcus you might catch today is producing beta lactamase.

In short, your body does not build up a resistance. Your infection evolves a defense. There's a difference.

I'm not well informed about which antibiotics are in use with livestock, but I'm going to guess that it's the cheap stuff. Cows are unlikely to be breeding grounds for zithromax-resistant bacteria.


Quote:

Originally Posted by milkweg /img/forum/go_quote.gif It's already been explained why synthetic is bad for you. Our bodies can't process it properly. Go back to the beginning of the thread.

I haven't seen an explanation of this that addresses the fact that sucrose in the stomach becomes chemically identical to HFCS in the stomach due to exposure to digestive acids.

 

[marvin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkweg /img/forum/go_quote.gif It's already been explained why synthetic is bad for you. Our bodies can't process it properly. Go back to the beginning of the thread.

It's not an issue of natural or synthetic. The generally accepted reason supported by various studies of why HFCS is bad has it down to the increased fructose content, as fructose is processed in the liver and excess fructose increases fat production in the liver. A straight comparison has table sugar (sucrose) at 50/50 fructose/sucrose and HFCS at 55/45.

Oddly enough though, honey's fructose/glucose ratio is pretty danged close to HFCS-55. Inexpensive HFCS-55 has been used to 'cut' honey and the only way to tell the difference is in trace protein testing. And apple juice is even worse than HFCS at ~ 65/20 fructose/sucrose. Pear juice? Same thing. High fructose to sucrose ratios aren't uncommon for other fruits and vegetables either. Don't see many people complaining about the use of those.*

And this doesn't even bring the HFCS-55 and HFCS-42 difference. HFCS-42 has 42% fructose and is the variant used in most food items. HFCS-55 is pretty much only used in sugary beverages. The complaint against HFCS in general doesn't even apply to most of the HFCS used in food products today.

The even more hilarious explanation of why HFCS is bad is that it's low cost only encourages people to over consume sugars. As majid noted earlier, the only reason why HFCS exists is because of an insane regulatory regime that institutes massive tarriffs on importing sugar into the US. As a result, sugar is roughly twice as expensive in America as it is elsewhere. If anything, the regulatory regime that makes HFCS production profitable decreases sugar consumption by making it exorbitantly expensive compared to the rest of the world.

* Except for apple/pear juice. There are complaints about the use of those juices as adulterants to reduce the cost of more expensive fruit juices.

 

[revolink24]

Quote:

Originally Posted by marvin /img/forum/go_quote.gif It's not an issue of natural or synthetic. The generally accepted reason supported by various studies of why HFCS is bad has it down to the increased fructose content, as fructose is processed in the liver and excess fructose increases fat production in the liver. A straight comparison has table sugar (sucrose) at 50/50 fructose/sucrose and HFCS at 55/45. Oddly enough though, honey's fructose/glucose ratio is pretty danged close to HFCS-55. Inexpensive HFCS-55 has been used to 'cut' honey and the only way to tell the difference is in trace protein testing. And apple juice is even worse than HFCS at ~ 65/20 fructose/sucrose. Pear juice? Same thing. High fructose to sucrose ratios aren't uncommon for other fruits and vegetables either. Don't see many people complaining about the use of those.* And this doesn't even bring the HFCS-55 and HFCS-42 difference. HFCS-42 has 42% fructose and is the variant used in most food items. HFCS-55 is pretty much only used in sugary beverages. The complaint against HFCS in general doesn't even apply to most of the HFCS used in food products today. The even more hilarious explanation of why HFCS is bad is that it's low cost only encourages people to over consume sugars. As majid noted earlier, the only reason why HFCS exists is because of an insane regulatory regime that institutes massive tarriffs on importing sugar into the US. As a result, sugar is roughly twice as expensive in America as it is elsewhere. If anything, the regulatory regime that makes HFCS production profitable decreases sugar consumption by making it exorbitantly expensive compared to the rest of the world. * Except for apple/pear juice. There are complaints about the use of those juices as adulterants to reduce the cost of more expensive fruit juices.

Thanks, someone who actually has some knowledge is arguing.

But the argument that it is up to people's discretion still holds. Its not a matter of using only one or the other, its a matter or proper portions and personal restraint. If you don't want HFCS, don't eat it and encourage local soft drink makers who use sugar as well as supporting the switch to sugar in commercial vendors.

 

[dallan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ericj /img/forum/go_quote.gif Uhm. When penicillin was originally isolated, it was the first time we used beta lactam rings as an antibiotic. The bacteria that were common to the human population at the time had never seen anything like a beta lactam ring, and the use of penicillin was wildly successful. But bacteria breed and mutate at a furious pace - some mutations are beneficial and some are not. Beta lactam rings inhibit cell wall growth in bacteria. Bacteria communicate with each other - sort of - by shooting out little pieces of RNA. It turns out that bacteria can evolve the ability to produce strands of beta lactamase and shoot those out outstead. These are like little knives that chop up the beta lactam rings. This is an example of what they call a 'resistant strain'. So we've developed antibiotics like ceftin that have a beta lactamase inhibitor attached to them - this is like catching the knife that has been thrown at you. And so goes the arms war with bacteria - but it's not as though every streptococcus you might catch today is producing beta lactamase. In short, your body does not build up a resistance. Your infection evolves a defense. There's a difference. I'm not well informed about which antibiotics are in use with livestock, but I'm going to guess that it's the cheap stuff. Cows are unlikely to be breeding grounds for zithromax-resistant bacteria. I haven't seen an explanation of this that addresses the fact that sucrose in the stomach becomes chemically identical to HFCS in the stomach due to exposure to digestive acids.

Using antibiotics kills the good bacteria that we need in our system to help it operate correctly, thus people who need to take antibiotics continually..ie my brother with lime disease, have to also take probiotics and eat a lot of cultured foods like yogurt to keep there colons healthy. In addition to this antibiotics keep our bodies from developing their own immunities to disease by artificially protecting them. So if we are taking in an unknown amount through the meat it is damaging.

 

[rangen]

Quote:

Originally Posted by marvin /img/forum/go_quote.gif And apple juice is even worse than HFCS at ~ 65/20 fructose/sucrose. Pear juice? Same thing. High fructose to sucrose ratios aren't uncommon for other fruits and vegetables either. Don't see many people complaining about the use of those.

Yes, I remember watching a show about a guy who was huge enough to need gastric bypass. One of the most distinctive things about his pre-surgery eating habits was that he went through about a gallon of apple juice a day. I grew up thinking fruit juice was healthy. I know better now.

 

[saintalfonzo]

I had an old-school Pepsi (real cane sugar) from the corner store the other day, and it definitely tasted better than regular. Trust me, I drink enough of it to know.

 

[dallan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rangen /img/forum/go_quote.gif I didn't comment because my comment would have been what I thought on reading it: "either that's not true, or my understanding of what a free radical is is really wrong." I thought that free radicals were, by definition, highly reactive, and I don't see how to make that fit with HFCS' long shelf life. Googling a bit, I do see an article pointing to a small scale study with some information about a chain of causality that could lead to an increase in free radicals in the human body with a diet very high in HFCS. However, it doesn't give numbers, nor comparisons to other activities and diets. But I don't see anything suggesting that HFCS is itself a free radical, and would welcome a link that explained how that can be.

From what I understand HFCS become free radicals because our body is unable to assimilate them properly as they can with normal sugar so they are not expelled or a part of them is not. What is left then travels in our body as a free radical. I am not a nutritionist but that is how it was explained to me in lay terms.

 

[rangen]

Quote:

Originally Posted by saintalfonzo /img/forum/go_quote.gif I had an old-school Pepsi (real cane sugar) from the corner store the other day, and it definitely tasted better than regular. Trust me, I drink enough of it to know.

Definitely. HFCS sucks, flavorwise. In my area, Mexican Coke and Pepsi, with sugar, are readily available as a gourmet item, and there's no comparison. Coke/Pepsi with sugar is refreshing. Bracing. Coke/Pepsi with HFCS is leaden and just sits there on your tongue and coats your mouth. Yecch!

 

[dallan]

Well i went back and saw a long list of Ericjs objections on the last page that maybe i will get to later since i don't agree with any of them, esp about the cattle and hormones/antibiotic things, the reasons are all financial, it's all about their profit not morality for the cows.
But the good news is i don't really have to worry or lose sleep about any of it as you say, because i don't eat beef, chicken, tuna or HFCS so either way i guess i am in the clear.

 

[ericj]

Quote:

Originally Posted by marvin /img/forum/go_quote.gif The even more hilarious explanation of why HFCS is bad is that it's low cost only encourages people to over consume sugars. As majid noted earlier, the only reason why HFCS exists is because of an insane regulatory regime that institutes massive tarriffs on importing sugar into the US. As a result, sugar is roughly twice as expensive in America as it is elsewhere. If anything, the regulatory regime that makes HFCS production profitable decreases sugar consumption by making it exorbitantly expensive compared to the rest of the world.

What's interesting is that you see the polar opposite in europe, where it's almost impossible to buy corn syrup (except as labeled as 'glucose syrup', and then it's hard to find), and in some countries your can of diet coke is just coke with less sugar in it.

We have a powerful corn lobby, they have a powerful sugar lobby. They've fought long and hard to prevent the importation of corn syrup - going as far as to raise a lot of fear, uncertainty, and doubt about genetically modified corn - likely contributing to starvation in africa, where some countries would rather go hungry than risk eating american corn which they've been assured is somehow deathly dangerous.