tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18505975.post6337922635985175445..comments2023-09-08T01:52:01.330-07:00Comments on Economic Sense: "ose"gateMatt Bogardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10510725993509264716noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18505975.post-70864595354497319002010-09-18T11:01:58.173-07:002010-09-18T11:01:58.173-07:00Yep, people are being fed a pack of lies.
Why doe...Yep, people are being fed a pack of lies.<br /><br />Why doesn't the producers use 50/50 HFCS? Because with HFCS 55 you get a sweeter taste with *fewer calories*. Switching back to sucrose means going with a less-sweet taste ( yes, it tastes different ) for the same number of calories. They could keep it the same sweetness, but that would mean upping the calories 25%! HFCS 90 is used in some low-cal products since you need half the calories to produce the same sweetness.<br /><br />The princeton study was poorly done and the author is making wild claims that are not sustained by the paper. All you have to do is ready the discussion page on wikipedia ( HFCS ) to see just how badly the author has misrepresented the study results.<br /><br />The biggest scam of all is inverted sugar syrup. Most of the HFCS -> sugar products are using inverted sugar syrup which is sucrose that has been broken down into glucose and fructose already ( 50/50 ) so all of the HFCS "problems" apply equally to these as well but you can't tell from the label.<br /><br />Honey is chemically difficult to differentiate from HFCS 42. Testing for adulterated or flat out substitution of HFCS for honey looks for trace proteins in the product rather than its glucose/fructose content.<br /><br />Even if producers are using straight sucrose much of it would breakdown through mixing with common ingredients, heating, and time.<br /><br />Fructose is known to cause health problems in quantities that would make the calorie count of the products just as much or more of a risk than its fructose content.<br /><br />Oh, and if 1:1 is the only safe amount then we have to cut out most "natural" products like fruit do not contain a 1:1 ratio.<br /><br />Sorry for rambling, trying to touch on a lot of points at once.Ericnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18505975.post-10615288003516622212010-09-17T20:59:54.371-07:002010-09-17T20:59:54.371-07:00Hi Matt,
The rat study at Princeton.
"HFCS ca...Hi Matt,<br />The rat study at Princeton.<br />"HFCS causes characteristics of obesity in rats..."<br />lead author Bart Hoebel<br />Pharmacology, Biochemistry, and <br />Behavior (online Journal available<br />26 Feb 2010.<br /><br />Now, here is some interesting<br />information about HFCS straight<br />from ADM's website.<br />"We offer Cornsweet 42, which can be used to replace up to 100% sucrose, CornSweet 55, used in carbonated beverages, and CornSweet 90 which<br />has an intesnse sweetness that makes it ideal for sweetening foods and beverages without adding a lot of calories."<br /><br />Now, this is news to me. I was under the impression (and so are other authors) that HFCS-90<br />served as the stock solution <br />for HFCS-42 and HFCS-55. However,<br />it appears that it is used in <br />some dietetic products. Imagine<br />the poor bloke trying to shed a few pounds. He sees something that<br />is low-fat, lo-cal and buys it not realizing that he's receiving <br />a whopping bolus of free fructose.<br />And now the CRA wants to lump all their corn syrups and high fructose corn syrups under the gentle name "corn sugar."<br />Grrrrr!<br />CynthiaCynthia1770https://www.blogger.com/profile/14460697982302389838noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18505975.post-78505294884587979332010-09-13T12:10:57.404-07:002010-09-13T12:10:57.404-07:00Hi Matt,
Thank you for taking me seriously.
Most w...Hi Matt,<br />Thank you for taking me seriously.<br />Most writers slam my math. But I have a little experience in this area since I was medical research technician for over 20 years. <br />When the AJCN starting publishing their short term studies (sometimes only 24 hours) on the metabolic effects of fructose vs glucose they did not study HFCS<br />vs. sugar. Having read many of their published papers, I got the vague feeling that they didn't want to find any difference. The lead author on many of the papers,<br />Anderson, even entitiled one of his reviews as "Much Ado about Nothing". Now there are more long term studies done with rats comparing HFCS vs. sugar which is<br />of course the main issue. The Princeton study gave rats rat chow<br />sweetened with HFCS-55 (equivalent to half-strength soda), and compared the results to rats fed sucrose sweetened chow. Both rats gained weight, but he rats fed the HFCS-55 sweetened chow got fatter and developed symptoms similar to metabolic syndrome. <br />I'm not sure of the Journal but<br />the lead author is Hoebel.<br />As I said I was a research technician, but now I am a full time piano teacher and trying to get my piano studio started for fall classes. When I get the specifics I'll send them. <br />Take care,<br />Cynthia <br /><br /><br />lead auCynthia1770https://www.blogger.com/profile/14460697982302389838noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18505975.post-49741713773792304312010-09-11T11:45:40.176-07:002010-09-11T11:45:40.176-07:00Very great comments. And, your assumption is corre...Very great comments. And, your assumption is correct, I was aware of the 55/45 ratio, but went with the 50/50 approximation. I love empiricism, and your simple breakdown of the ratio (1.22) makes a great point. And the question of why a 50/50 HFCS formulation was not used introduces another interesting element to the discussion. <br /><br /><br />Regarding your comment "they forgot or overlooked the fact that the<br />fructose: glucose imbalance would be metabolically hazardous" I am aware of research that notes metabolic hazards associated with fructose, but is there any research that you are aware of that shows that the increase in fructose (based on the ratio you described) is large enough to have a statistically significantly worse impact on health than sugar at 1:1?<br /><br />If you can provide me with those citations I would be very interested. I think that is the question that may get to the heart of the debate. <br /><br />Thanks for your comments.Matt Bogardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10510725993509264716noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18505975.post-85976384753797024652010-09-10T04:45:23.113-07:002010-09-10T04:45:23.113-07:00Hi,
My google alert picked up your post. I could f...Hi,<br />My google alert picked up your post. I could feel the heat from your prose.<br />Let's put aside the sugar tariff/farm subsidy issues and just compare table sugar with HFCS.<br />First, table sugar (sucrose) is a disaccharide of fructose linked to glucose. The ratio can only be <br />1:1 or 50%:50%. HFCS-55, used to sweeten all national brands of soda is 55% fructose: 45% glucose.<br />This may appear to be just 5% different than sucrose, until you sit down and do the math. <br />55%:45% = 55/45 =1.22<br />This mean in every Coke there is,<br />compared to glucose, 22% more fructose. This unexpected difference comes from the fact that in any two component solution, if you increase the percentage of one component, by definition the other must decrease. (The total must equal 100%). In my humble opinion, this<br />fructose>>glucose imbalance over <br />the last two decades has contributed to our health woes of obesity and type II diabetes. <br />HFCS of all grades is only a mixture of fructose and glucose. The corn chemists can tweak the percentage of fructose anyway they want. After all, the ingredients on boxes, cans, and bottles only list "HFCS" not the percentage fructose. I have always been stymied why HFCS-50 wasn't used. That would have at least simulated sucrose. For whatever reason they chose to use a fructose rich sweetener--making <br />it sweeter so end manufacturers could use less, making it sweeter so the same sweeteness could be imparted with fewer calories (our fetish), or perhaps they found out a fructose rich sweetener is slightly addictive (my conjecture), they forgot or overlooked the fact that the <br />fructose: glucose imbalance would be metabolically hazardous to our livers, pancreas, and arteries.<br />Sugar is not saint,but it always 1:1.<br />Take care,<br />Cynthia Papierniak, M.S.Cynthia1770https://www.blogger.com/profile/14460697982302389838noreply@blogger.com