Reply With Quote
Then you're flat out lieing.
In moderation?
Same as table sugar, honey.
Suddenly pure honey is bad for you?
Then you're flat out lieing.
Aspirin
Penicillin
Yogurt
Corn Flour
Cereal
Margarine
Peanut Butter
You need more?
No. That's quite a jump there, don't you think?
How much moderation is going on if it's in so many products and in uncontrollable amounts. You and I can definitely control the amount of sugar or honey we use. Also, the processing of hfcs is an issue. There isn't a lot of processing happening with honey.
Are you seriously comparing hfcs to honey?
Last edited by ohmwrecker; 02-08-2011 at 11:32 PM.
It's hfcs if it's used as a sweetner. You can make yogurt and peanut butter without hfcs.
The American Dietetic Association found that “once they are absorbed into the bloodstream, the two sweeteners are indistinguishable.” (sugar and HFCS)
http://www.fitnessspotlight.com/2008...-agave-nectar/
Most often, I hear people talking about avoiding products with HFCS or sugar and opting instead for a “natural sweetener” like honey or agave nectar. Surely these all-natural forms of sugar are more healthful, right? Well, certainly not in terms of fructose content. Honey typically has about the same ratio as HFCS. Agave nectar can range from 56-92% fructose, depending on the brand. There are other options like evaporated cane juice, which vary in quan y of sucrose (and therefore fructose), but the best number I came up with was 85-95% sucrose, meaning 42.5-47.5% fructose.(5) The only mark I’ll give them above other sweeteners is that they’re less processed.
Are you trying to say ANY sugar is equivalent to the devil?
Sure, but is one healthier or worse for you?
You do realize the "they" you are talking about is me, right?
Bull .
The government does not subsidize high fructose corn syrup.
This is fun.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/opinion/04pollan.html
http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch...sity-by-attack
btw, I support Americans farms to the fullest and in no way am I trying to insult anyone who makes their living working a farm.
where in those blogs does it talk about farms that grow corn specifically for hfcs?
moving the goalposts is bull .
The reason HFCS is used in soda instead of sugar is not that subsidies to corn farmers make HFCS cheaper; the sugar program that keeps sugar exports out makes U.S. sugar much more expensive. The world price of sugar is $0.10-$0.20 per lb. cheaper than what users pay in the U.S. It's also the reason most of the candy factories in Chicago have disappeared.
Furthermore, while plenty of reasons exist to dislike farm programs, the obesity epidemic cannot be laid at their feet. No evidence exists that payments to farmers make food cheaper—if that is, in fact, a contributor to obesity.
BY JCM on 10/27/2010 at 18:05
Terrible reporting job, on two counts.
First, there is no subsidy of corn starch or corn grain itself. What there is, bizarre as it seems, is a "direct payment" program to farmers who at one time produced corn, but the amount of that payment is not linked at all to production or price now, so it is not in any sense a subsidy of corn production.
Second, corn price is twice the level of the first half-decade of the century. Subsidies are not making corn cheap - it has not been cheap at all. So cheap corn is definitely not the reason so much sweetener is used in soft drinks. Think of another theory.
I'm not a supporter of the direct payment program. I'm also not a supporter of misleading and plain wrong reporting.
These are the first two comments on your article. Whatever.
HFCS is not ONE BIT MORE of a health problem then honey or table sugar. No wonder Peterson said that people just don't get it.
If people want healthy, you're going to have to give me a reason to grow it. Just because you're neighbor's a fatass doesn't mean i'm going to grow carrots over corn. Guess what? That means..........You'd have to subsidize it!!!! Either that or pay more because it has a high cost of production.
direct payments, countercyclical payments and loan deficiency payments that subsidize the five big commodity crops — corn, wheat, rice, soybeans and cotton
There goes THAT theory......
Not to mention, LDP's were only in effect when corn was well below the cost of production. I don't remember a LDP in at least 6 years, there is no way you'll see one again at those levels.
Only the southern farmer really cares about the other two payments.
Axe the whole thing for all I care, but don't get too worked up when the american farmer does not have to abide by a set of rules on growing and it affects the average joe.
Yes, but that's like saying "I don't see why people don't go without cable tv/Internet/phone in order to save more money towards retirement."
It may be smarter, but many people don't find that tradeoff worth it. Just because you are willing to trade time for healthy food doesn't mean everyone else. In the same manner, do you work out for 30 mins at least 3 times a week? If not, why not?
Ok, so you find it worth it. Great. But considering the OP was about how crap food was easier to eat then good food, you only prove the point.
I thought the point of the thread was to try to balance the cheap/good food cost ratios, and find ways to encourage consumers to eat healthy. Telling them they are lazy and ignorant probably won't work.
You stopped?Never made the claim tbh. Where do I "distract, derail and split hairs"?
Congratulations!
Okay, but then there are also studies that show that HFCS causes obesity more excessively when compared to sucrose alone. It is true, though, that on a molecular level they are converted to the same molecule. How can this be?
My personal theory is that HFCS is more completely absorbed by the intestines than sucrose is.
Compare a Mexican cane-sugar Coca-Cola with it's US HFCS counterpart. I personally notice that a slimy film lines my mouth more noticeably with the HFCS. This undoubtedly also happens to the lining of the digestive tract. This is all just speculation, but I'll bet you a diddled-eyed Joe to a damned-if-I-know that sucrose is more freely suspended in the digestive tract, and thus less completely absorbed than is HFCS, clinging to the absorptive walls of your bowels.
If someone throws me some grant money I could research it
Oh yeah, also there's mercury in it:
http://ehjournal.net/content/8/1/2
"American Dietetic Association"
.... just another en y captured, financed, and corrupted by corporations.
"My personal theory......."
Woodhall Stopford, MD, MSPH, of Duke University Medical Center, one of the nation’s leading experts in mercury contamination, reviewed the results of total mercury testing of samples of high fructose corn syrup conducted by Eurofins Central Analytical Laboratory (Metairie, LA) in February and March 2009. Dr. Stopford concluded:
•No quantifiable mercury was detected in any of the samples analyzed.
•High fructose corn syrup does not appear to be a measurable contributor to mercury in foods.
In his summary of findings, Dr. Stopford stated, "Mercury is ubiquitous in the environment being generated both by man-made activities (such as coal-fired power plants) and by natural phenomenon (such as volcanoes). Mercury is found naturally in all living things, including all categories of foods and beverages. Levels in foods and beverages have dropped significantly in the last 40 years. The introduction of high fructose corn syrup as a sweetener has not been associated with any noticeable difference in mercury levels in foods and beverages containing high fructose corn syrup. Levels of mercury found in such foods and beverages are what would be expected from mercury found normally in such foods and beverages and are at background levels."
To view Dr. Stopford’s analysis and conclusions, please see: http://duketox.mc.duke.edu/HFCS%20test%20results4.doc.
http://www.sweetsurprise.com/news-an...s/hfcs-mercury
You said something?
I might have read your post in haste.
Unfortunately for me, more careful reading will not avail me in the future -- or indeed at any time at all -- owing to my previously stipulated stupidity.
Last edited by Winehole23; 02-10-2011 at 04:30 AM.
What a pity.
and yes "my personal theory" is just thatAn EHO at the FDA conducted an investigation of the chlor-alkali industry in 2004 and found mercury residue in all of the mercury cell chlor-alkali products including caustic soda, chlorine, potassium hydroxide, and hydrochloric acid. Mercury is widely accepted to be a neurotoxic heavy metal [23]. The American Academy of Pediatrics has recommended that minimizing any form of mercury exposure is essential for optimal child health and nervous system development [6]. Current international food processing standards allow 1.0 μg mercury/g caustic soda [21,22] and there is no standard for mercury in food grade hydrochloric acid. Both of these chemicals may be used to make HFCS. Mercury contamination of food products as a result of the use of mercury contaminated HFCS seems like a very real possibility. With daily per capita consumption of HFCS in the US averaging about 50 grams and daily mercury intakes from HFCS ranging up to 28 μg, this potential source of mercury may exceed other major sources of mercury especially in high-end consumers of beverages sweetened with HFCS. Food products that contain a significant amount of HFCS should be tested for mercury contamination in the end product and the public should be informed of any detections. Clearly, more research is needed to determine the extent of mercury exposure in children from mercury contaminated HFCS in food products.a theory, needs testing. If anyone wants to throw me some grant money I could research it
dude your website linked is www.sweetsurprise.com ...after glancing at it, do you really think it will be unbiased?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
