# Lifestyles & Discussion > Personal Health & Well-Being >  Mexican Coke to use HFCS instead of cane sugar

## Matt Collins

http://www.latintimes.com/articles/9...m#.UnqqBOLHhcn

----------


## Ronin Truth

> http://www.latintimes.com/articles/9...m#.UnqqBOLHhcn


OH NO! Say it isn't so.  I had become a steady Sam's Club customer for case Mexicoke AKA "the real thing".  Made with cane sugar the way it was and should be.

----------


## eduardo89

As posted in another thread this summer, the vast majority of Coke and other soft drinks in Mexico already use HFCS or a blend of sugar and HFCS.

----------


## Seraphim

The fattest country in the world is about to get fatter.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> As posted in another thread this summer, the vast majority of Coke and other soft drinks in Mexico already use HFCS or a blend of sugar and HFCS.


Then I wonder why it's a news story in the Latin Times.

----------


## Jeremy

> The fattest country in the world is about to get fatter.


Either sugar will make you fat.

----------


## Jeremy

> Then I wonder why it's a news story in the Latin Times.


Latin Times!

----------


## PRB

> As posted in another thread this summer, the vast majority of Coke and other soft drinks in Mexico already use HFCS or a blend of sugar and HFCS.


HFCS is not non-sugar, it's just not sucrose. HFCS is 55% fructose and 45% glucose (the same stuff in honey, by the way).

----------


## AFPVet

> HFCS is not non-sugar, it's just not sucrose. HFCS is 55% fructose and 45% glucose (the same stuff in honey, by the way).


... with added mercury for extra flavor

----------


## GunnyFreedom

You can get sugar Pepsi now that's not 'throwback.' US produced sugar Pepsi. Just look for the glass bottles.

----------


## PRB

> ... with added mercury for extra flavor


Proof?

----------


## Seraphim

Yes but it is scientically proven that HFCS messes with glands and hormones resulting in dramatic metabolic shortfalls.

It's like putting gunky gasoline in your car engine instead of super clean. They both get you to where you need to go, but pop the hood and over time, one leaves things dirty and subpar.

Caloric quality is just as important as caloric quantity.




> Either sugar will make you fat.

----------


## PRB

> *Yes but it is scientically proven that HFCS messes with glands and hormones resulting in dramatic metabolic shortfalls.
> *
> It's like putting gunky gasoline in your car engine instead of super clean. They both get you to where you need to go, but pop the hood and over time, one leaves things dirty and subpar.
> 
> Caloric quality is just as important as caloric quantity.


Really? So honey would too. After all, what does HFCS have in it? Fructose and glucose.

----------


## brandon

They taste exactly the same to me honestly.

----------


## Ronin Truth

Excerpt from the article




> It's no surprise that the transition from cane sugar to high-fructose corn syrup will be controversial, to say the least. Here are four reasons why the shift in ingredients is a terrible decision: 
> *1. High-fructose corn syrup is not healthy.* In 2004, researchers at the Pennington Biomedical Research Center of Louisiana State University published their findings that revealed that high-fructose corn syrup is a major player in America's obesity epidemic. 
> *2. Sugar is not all the same.* Defenders of high-fructose corn syrup will argue that cane sugar and high-fructose corn syrup are similar in structure and ergo, are not very different. But from a biochemical standpoint, the two ingredients are not identical and as such, they are not processed by the body in the same way. 
> *3. High-fructose corn syrup contains contaminants that are not regulated.* High-fructose corn syrup is notorious for containing toxic levels of mercury and other questionable chemical compounds that are not measured or regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
> *4. It will hinder the taste that "Mexicoke" is famous for.* Those who have tasted both variations of the beverage insist that not only is Mexican Coca-Cola sweeter, but the high-fructose corn syrup variation is bitterer, more sour and boasts a synthetic taste.


 http://www.latintimes.com/articles/9...m#.UnqqBOLHhcn

----------


## Lucille

Nooooo!

----------


## Seraphim

Nope. Honey is great for you.

Synthetic compounds vs clean, pure calories.




> Really? So honey would too. After all, what does HFCS have in it? Fructose and glucose.

----------


## PRB

> Excerpt from the article
> 
> http://www.latintimes.com/articles/9...m#.UnqqBOLHhcn


any reasons which makes HFCS unhealthy, would apply to honey as well. With the exception of contaminants, if that's true at all.

----------


## PRB

> Nope. Honey is great for you.
> 
> Synthetic compounds vs clean, pure calories.


there's nothing synthetic in HFCS, it's concentrated sugar extract from corn, it contains fructose and glucose, the same things that make honey sweet. Honey is "clean"? ever seen warning labels that say don't feed to infants? Botulism?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

The fact that the onset of America's obesity and diabetes epidemic coincided with the commercial uptake of HFCS is just a coincidence.  Go back to sleep.  Fat addicted people make better welfare slaves and complain less about corn subsidies.

----------


## amonasro

> They taste exactly the same to me honestly.



HFCS Coke tastes sweeter to me. But I prefer the classic.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> The fact that the onset of America's obesity and diabetes epidemic coincided with the commercial uptake of HFCS is just a coincidence.  Go back to sleep.

----------


## Dr.3D

> there's nothing synthetic in HFCS, it's concentrated sugar extract from corn, it contains fructose and glucose, the same things that make honey sweet. Honey is "clean"? ever seen warning labels that say don't feed to infants? Botulism?


I think they mean, it comes from a laboratory.  In the process, enzymes are used to convert it to the desired glucose:fructose ratio.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> there's nothing synthetic in HFCS, it's concentrated sugar extract from corn?


It's genetically engineered corn that is banned in the majority of the free world. And for good reason. And as long as the terms of controversy are derived from our representatives taking on the role of a glorified pop-up ad for these boitech industries and their _consumption_ based consumer model _only_ then there will be no expectation of having to  answer any tough questions regarding the effects of the genuine science regarding it's effect on human beings who just think it's corn in it's natural form or state. The difference between the human and the consumer here (consumerism seemingly being the preferred model to solicit terms of controversy that redirect the issue from the effect on the human species) is that which is his/her _survival_ versus_ growth_ of the industry. Which is really all you hear our representatives want to discuss. They avoid the issue like the plague in favor of promoting the consumption model.

Why else do we have these companies spending millions to make sure you keep saying "corn" in a manner that solicits the notion that it's a natural product and that it must surely be OK? Cripes, Pesi and Coke spent $9 million to influence the vote on labeling in Washington State just yesterday specifically so that you _don't_ know any better. And even then it came down to a pretty close split with the biotech industry probably winning over in this particular state. So, yeah. We know who speaks for whom. Which is important moving forward.

----------


## PRB

> HFCS Coke tastes sweeter to me. But I prefer the classic.


it probably does, since fructose and glucose are both monosaccharides, as opposed to sucrose.

----------


## PRB

> It's genetically engineered corn that is banned in the majority of the free world. And for good reason. And as long as the terms of controversy are derived from our representatives taking on the role of a glorified pop-up ad for these boitech industries and their _consumption_ based consumer model _only_ then there *will be no expectation of having to  answer any tough questions regarding the effects of the genuine science regarding it's effect on human beings who just think it's corn in in it's natural form.* The difference between the human and the consumer here consumer being the preferred model to solicit terms of controversy that redirect the issue) is that which is his/her survival versus growth of the industry. Which is really all you hear our representatives want to discuss. They avoid the issue like the plague in favor of promoting the consumption model.
> 
> Why else do we have these companies spending millions to make sure you keep saying "corn" in a manner that solicits the notion that it's a natural product and that it musr be OK? Cripes, Pesi and Coke spent $9 million to influence the vote on labeling in Washington State just yesterdayo that you don't know any better. And even then it came down to a pretty close split with the biotech industry probably winning over in this particular state. So, yeah. We know who speaks for whom. Which is important moving forward.


just answer the question, is there ANY scientific reason HFCS would chemically be different than honey? Also, there's no proof whatsoever that GMO corn produces sugar any differently, there's not ONE test you can cite which can show that mice or any organism fed CS from GMO vs organic corn that notices any differences. Whether GMO is itself dangerous and poisonous has nothing to do with whether the sugar extracted from it is any different.

----------


## PRB

> The fact that the onset of America's obesity and diabetes epidemic coincided with the commercial uptake of HFCS is just a coincidence.  Go back to sleep.  Fat addicted people make better welfare slaves and complain less about corn subsidies.


No, it's not a coincidence. But it's not compared to the equal consumption of either sucrose or honey, which is where the fallacy comes in.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> No, it's not a coincidence. But it's not compared to the equal consumption of either sucrose or honey, which is where the fallacy comes in.


High Fructose causes an increase in craving and a decrease in satisfaction.  Glucose can be processed by every cell int he body, while fructose and only be processed by the liver.  In addition to massively increasing the desire for consumption, it also leads to a form of cirrhosis similar to the oversonsumption of alcohol.

Before I even knew what HFCS was, I randomly found a sugar soda and started drinking it because I liked it.  My natural desire for consumption went from 6 sodas a day down to 1.  While there is some truth to the idea that it's all about how much you drink (not entirely, HFCS goes to the liver, glucose goes to every cell in the body), HFCS promotes overconsumption, and therefore obesity and diabetes, along with liver disease.

----------


## hillertexas

*UPDATE: Mexican Coke Update: Good News For US, Imported Version Will Still Use Cane Sugar; Bad News For Mexico, HFCS Might Be Added To Their Formula*



> It's all been a misunderstanding blown out of proportion. It all started when Mexican authorities, in their efforts to tackle on the more than 70 percent of the population who are overweight, making Mexico the fattest nation in the world, according to a study by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), decided to tax soft-drinks with an extra peso, or 8 cents, per liter. As a result, Francisco Garza, chief executive of Arca Continental, Mexico's second-largest Coca-Cola bottler, said in a conference call with analysts that the new tax could cause a "move to more fructose."
> 
> That small comment gave way to massive outrage from fans of Mexicoke -- how it is popularly called -- in the United States, who are loyal to the iconic glass bottle because it uses cane sugar instead of high fructose corn syrup. Garza had to rectify in a statement that Arca Continental has no plans to change the sweetener for the Coke bottles it exports. Those will continue to use 100 percent cane sugar, the statement said. The company's CEO said that the thought of using more fructose was only for drinks distributed in Mexico.


http://www.latintimes.com/articles/9...m#.UnribyR3__R

----------


## green73

> The fattest country in the world is about to get fatter.


I can't believe Muricans stand for this. Surely this is one thing we can be first in!

----------


## Natural Citizen

> just answer the question, is there ANY scientific reason HFCS would chemically be different than honey? Also, there's no proof whatsoever that GMO corn produces sugar any differently, there's not ONE test you can cite which can show that mice or any organism fed CS from GMO vs organic corn that notices any differences. Whether GMO is itself dangerous and poisonous has nothing to do with whether the sugar extracted from it is any different.



You're asking the wrong questions. They're irrelevant in scope. So, why would I even take the time to help you spin the issue more? Do take time to read the boards here though. You'll find a tremendous wealth of sources regarding testing of GMO's and their effects. I know because I've shared a lot of them here.

As well...I'll tell you another reason why they don't want to put labels on these lab concoctions. If twe did then we would have humans to actually test and record as well a place into relevance the effects of eating this stuff. Or _consuming_ it. We don't want that though. Do we? Just want everyone to have a coke and a smile and shut the $#@! up. Right?

----------


## PRB

> High Fructose causes an increase in craving and a decrease in satisfaction.  Glucose can be processed by every cell int he body, while fructose and only be processed by the liver.  In addition to massively increasing the desire for consumption, it also leads to a form of cirrhosis similar to the oversonsumption of alcohol.


Cool story bro, so what you said was "fructose is bad, glucose is ok". Good, then now explain to me how eating honey at the same rate would be any different. Keep in mind that HFCS, despite the name, is only 5% more F than G. That's right, about 55% fructose and 45% glucose. So if that's enough to make HFCS poison, then tell us why honey is not equally bad. What's the composition of honey? 38% F vs 31% G plus a lot of water and other stuff, so that's still roughly a 55/45 ratio. I'm OK with the argument that HFCS is worse than sucrose, just as long as honey is equally bad, unless you can give me a scientific explanation why not (the guy above you claims it's because HFCS is from GMO corn, fail)

----------


## PRB

> You're asking the wrong questions. They're irrelevant in scope. So, why would I even take the time to help you spin the issue more? Do take time to read the boards here though. You'll find a tremendous wealth of sources regarding testing of GMO's and their effects. I know because I've shared a lot of them here.
> 
> As well...I'll tell you another reason why they don't want to put labels on these lab concoctions. If twe did then we would have humans to actually test and record as well a place into relevance the effects of eating this stuff. Or _consuming_ it. We don't want that though. Do we? *Just want everyone to have a coke and a smile and shut the $#@! up. Right*?


No, but I think it's unfair and hypocritical to demonize HFCS as if sugar and honey are just fine if you consumed them equally. Effects of GMOs have nothing to do with the extracts of HFCS, until you can prove it (I know you can, I've looked into this more than you, I challenge you to find me ONE).

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Cool story bro, so what you said was "fructose is bad, glucose is ok". Good, then now explain to me how eating honey at the same rate would be any different. Keep in mind that HFCS, despite the name, is only 5% more F than G. That's right, about 55% fructose and 45% glucose. So if that's enough to make HFCS poison, then tell us why honey is not equally bad. What's the composition of honey? 38% F vs 31% G plus a lot of water and other stuff, so that's still roughly a 55/45 ratio. I'm OK with the argument that HFCS is worse than sucrose, just as long as honey is equally bad, unless you can give me a scientific explanation why not (the guy above you claims it's because HFCS is from GMO corn, fail)


I could always type slower if it helps.

----------


## PRB

> I could always type slower if it helps.


Take all the time you need, but if you're going to demonize HFCS and blame obesity on it, I want to know why honey is somehow free from such accusations, preferable detailed scientific justifications. (it's fine if you don't know, but acting like a know it all invites me to call you out on it)

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Take all the time you need, but if you're going to demonize HFCS and blame obesity on it, I want to know why honey is somehow free from such accusations, preferable detailed scientific justifications. (it's fine if you don't know, but acting like a know it all invites me to call you out on it)


l i v e r

----------


## GunnyFreedom

a n

o r g a n

i n

t h e 

a b d o m e n

y o u

n e e d

t o 

l i v e

----------


## PRB

"HFCS promotes overconsumption, and therefore obesity and diabetes, along with liver disease." and honey, cane sugar never does, no matter how much of it you have, right?

----------


## PRB

> a n
> 
> o r g a n
> 
> i n
> 
> t h e 
> 
> a b d o m e n
> ...


I need a LIVEr to LIVE? Ok, what makes honey safer since it's got more fructose than glucose, just like HFCS does?

----------


## Dr.3D

> "HFCS promotes overconsumption, and therefore obesity and diabetes, along with liver disease." and honey, cane sugar never does, no matter how much of it you have, right?


I'm pretty sure if they used honey instead of HFCS, the result would be the same.  Obesity, diabetes and liver disease.   Thing is, they are not using honey like they are HFCS.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I need a LIVEr to LIVE? Ok, what makes honey safer since it's got more fructose than glucose, just like HFCS does?


honey isn't added to products by the metric ton.  Because of the differences in how the human body processes fructose, sucrose, and glucose, products that use high concentrations of HFCS increase consumption and decrease satisfaction, making the consumer want more and more and more.

If you drank half a gallon of honey a day, every day, for 20 years you'd be pretty sick too.  You would also be broke, because it costs several orders of magnitude more per unit.

----------


## PRB

> I'm pretty sure if they used honey instead of HFCS, the result would be the same.  Obesity, diabetes and liver disease.   Thing is, they are not using honey like they are HFCS.


I think you're right, I am not aware of even ONE scientific study that tells of why HFCS would have any different effects on bodies than honey. I'd love to see one. Indeed HFCS is overused in all kinds of places, and that's a problem itself, which means replacing it with sucrose or honey wouldn't help at all.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I think you're right, I am not aware of even ONE scientific study that tells of why HFCS would have any different effects on bodies than honey. I'd love to see one. Indeed HFCS is overused in all kinds of places, and that's a problem itself, which means replacing it with sucrose or honey wouldn't help at all.


Except for the whole thing about reducing the natural desire for consumption to 1/6th

----------


## RM918

Agggh whyyyyy. I have a couple convenience stores by me that sell them for the Hispanic community, was nice to treat myself with some of the quality stuff.

One of'em does have the Pepsi too, but egh, PEPSI.

----------


## Dr.3D

> I think you're right, I am not aware of even ONE scientific study that tells of why HFCS would have any different effects on bodies than honey. I'd love to see one. Indeed HFCS is overused in all kinds of places, and that's a problem itself, which means replacing it with sucrose or honey wouldn't help at all.


 People tend to drink more soda when it has HFCS rather than sucrose.   It seems the use of HFCS causes people to consume more of those products than if they had used sugar (sucrose).

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Agggh whyyyyy. I have a couple convenience stores by me that sell them for the Hispanic community, was nice to treat myself with some of the quality stuff.
> 
> One of'em does have the Pepsi too, but egh, PEPSI.


You missed post #29

----------


## PRB

> *honey isn't added to products by the metric ton*.  Because of the differences in how the human body processes fructose, sucrose, and glucose, products that use high concentrations of HFCS increase consumption and decrease satisfaction, making the consumer want more and more and more.
> 
> *If you drank half a gallon of honey a day, every day, for 20 years you'd be pretty sick too.*  You would also be broke, because it costs several orders of magnitude more per unit.


Can I take that as an admission HFCS is NOT worse than honey, at least as far as you know. it's just cheaper and added in tons in tons of products where it's not necessary, had you replaced them with equal amounts of honey, you'd be no better off?

----------


## RM918

> You missed post #29


I actually just noticed that after actually reading the article.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Can I take that as an admission HFCS is NOT worse than honey, at least as far as you know. it's just cheaper and added in tons in tons of products where it's not necessary, had you replaced them with equal amounts of honey, you'd be no better off?


Uh, no.  The manufacturing processes for HFCS introduces chemical impurities that I do not trust.  Further, the whole question of honey is both a red herring and a strawman.  Nobody but you is talking about honey.

----------


## PRB

> Except for the whole thing about reducing the natural desire for consumption to 1/6th


what about it? your personal experience about how you randomly drank sodas and then didn't after you learned what's in it?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> what about it? your personal experience about how you randomly drank sodas and then didn't after you learned what's in it?


You apparently need to work on your reading comprehension as well as your logic.

----------


## PRB

> Uh, no.  The manufacturing processes for HFCS introduces chemical impurities that I do not trust.  Further, the whole question of honey is both a red herring and a strawman.  Nobody but you is talking about honey.


What impurities? Honey contains the same sweeteners as HFCS, so there's no chemical or scientific reason one is better than the other. It's not a red herring, it's getting you to admit you don't know what you're talking about when you demonize HFCS.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> What impurities? Honey contains the same sweeteners as HFCS, so there's no chemical or scientific reason one is better than the other. It's not a red herring, it's getting you to admit you don't know what you're talking about when you demonize HFCS.


Pretty sure bees do not harvest corn and process the ears in a factory.

And you are still the only person talking about honey.

----------


## PRB

> You apparently need to work on your reading comprehension as well as your logic.


"Before I even knew what HFCS was, I randomly found a sugar soda and started drinking it because I liked it.  My natural desire for consumption went from 6 sodas a day down to 1.  " Meaning what? That before you knew what HFCS was, you drank less sodas, after you knew, you drank more of it? Yeah, I do need help understanding this.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> "Before I even knew what HFCS was, I randomly found a sugar soda and started drinking it because I liked it.  My natural desire for consumption went from 6 sodas a day down to 1.  " Meaning what? That before you knew what HFCS was, you drank less sodas, after you knew, you drank more of it? Yeah, I do need help understanding this.


Obviously.  I hear the local community colleges often offer High School English courses for GED preparation.

----------


## Dr.3D

> "Before I even knew what HFCS was, I randomly found a sugar soda and started drinking it because I liked it.  My natural desire for consumption went from 6 sodas a day down to 1.  " Meaning what? That before you knew what HFCS was, you drank less sodas, after you knew, you drank more of it? Yeah, I do need help understanding this.


The way I understand it, he said drinking soda with HFCS is not satisfying and people drink one after another, but when they drink soda with sucrose, they are satisfied and don't drink as many.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> The way I understand it, he said drinking soda with HFCS is not satisfying and people drink one after another, but when they drink soda with sucrose, they are satisfied and don't drink as many.


Exactly.  And I am not the only one.  Difference being my experience with this phenomena was 'blind.'  I had no idea what HFCS was at the time, nor that there was any difference between it and sugar.  I knew I wrote it clear enough so people could comprehend it.

----------


## PRB

> The way I understand it, he said drinking soda with HFCS is not satisfying and people drink one after another, but when they drink soda with sucrose, they are satisfied and don't drink as many.


how did he know he wasn't biased after knowing what's in the soda? or better yet, if they were different sodas altogether, can't some just taste better vs worse?

----------


## PRB

> Exactly.  And I am not the only one.  Difference being my experience with this phenomena was 'blind.'  I had no idea what HFCS was at the time, nor that there was any difference between it and sugar.  I knew I wrote it clear enough so people could comprehend it.


you're going by your own memory and assuming the sodas otherwise taste exactly the same, hardly blind and hardly unbiased.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> how did he know he wasn't biased after knowing what's in the soda? or better yet, if they were different sodas altogether, can't some just taste better vs worse?


Because pretty much everyone who switches from HFCS to Sucrose experiences the same phenomena.  It's one of the reasons that sugar soda is so popular.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> you're going by your own memory and assuming the sodas otherwise taste exactly the same, hardly blind and hardly unbiased.


It works with tea too.

----------


## Dr.3D

> how did he know he wasn't biased after knowing what's in the soda? or better yet, if they were different sodas altogether, can't some just taste better vs worse?


Sigh..... 

I have had the same experience.   If you ask others, I'm sure you will find many have experienced the same thing.    This accounts for the increase in obesity we have been experiencing since the introduction if HFCS.

----------


## green73

> HFCS
> 
> Like corn syrup, high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is produced from corn starch; however, the manufacturing process deliberately converts a certain percentage of initial glucose into fructose. The two most common HFCS mixtures are HFCS-55 (containing 55% fructose) and HFCS-42, the former typically added to sodas and the latter added to other processed foods. The presence of fructose in HFCS appears to be key behind its myriad of negative health effects. Fructose content not only contributes to liver disease but lowers HDL levels while increasing small, dense (and more dangerous) LDL particles. As mentioned earlier, fructose also doesn’t flip the hormonal satiation switch as glucose does. Finally, the HFCS industry has been haunted by evidence of mercury contamination related to its production techniques.
> 
> 
> Raw Honey
> 
> Honey consists of dextrose and fructose (broken down from sucrose through honey bee’s digestion) in a nearly 1:1 ratio (with other components such as water, wax, nutrients, etc.). Raw honey has a glycemic index of about 30, but processed honey clocks in around 75. Those who have a harder time digesting fructose can often tolerate honey. Although conventional processing destroys much of honey’s natural benefits, raw honey serves up a (many claim therapeutic) dose of antioxidants, minerals, vitamins, amino acids, and enzymes.


http://www.marksdailyapple.com/the-d...uide-to-sugar/

----------


## PRB

> It works with tea too.


so we can use you to test whether something has HFCS vs sugar vs honey in it, right? Yeah, I'll take your word for it over actual scientific evidence.

----------


## Dr.3D

I can taste the difference between the two.  One is more crisp and bubbly and doesn't leave such an aftertaste.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Sigh..... 
> 
> I have had the same experience.   If you ask others, I'm sure you will find many have experienced the same thing.    This accounts for the increase in obesity we have been experiencing since the introduction if HFCS.


You are way more patient than me, brother.

----------


## Dr.3D

> You are way more patient than me, brother.


Well, I'm darned close to pressing the -Rep button.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> so we can use you to test whether something has HFCS vs sugar vs honey in it, right? Yeah, I'll take your word for it over actual scientific evidence.


Pretty sure you are the one ignoring the science.  Fructose is processed in the liver only.  Glucose is processed by every cell in the body, leading to a quicker uptake and greater satisfaction reflex, decreasing the desire for more.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

How about Princeton University?  Is that sciency enough?

http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/a.../S26/91/22K07/




> A sweet problem: Princeton researchers find that high-fructose corn syrup prompts considerably more weight gain
> Posted March 22, 2010; 10:00 a.m.
> 
> A Princeton University research team has demonstrated that all sweeteners are not equal when it comes to weight gain: Rats with access to high-fructose corn syrup gained significantly more weight than those with access to table sugar, even when their overall caloric intake was the same.  
> 
> In addition to causing significant weight gain in lab animals, long-term consumption of high-fructose corn syrup also led to abnormal increases in body fat, especially in the abdomen, and a rise in circulating blood fats called triglycerides. The researchers say the work sheds light on the factors contributing to obesity trends in the United States.
> 
> continued

----------


## Zippyjuan

> HFCS is not non-sugar, it's just not sucrose. HFCS is 55% fructose and 45% glucose (the same stuff in honey, by the way).


Anything ending with "ose" is sugar. Glucose is a sugar. Fructose is a sugar. Lactose is a sugar. Sucrose is a sugar. 

Honey: http://www.fitday.com/fitness-articl...s-natural.html




> Its no secret that white sugar is a food you should consume sparingly, but is honey a healthier sweet option? Honey may be less refined and more natural than white sugar, but honey is still high in calories. Overall, honey is perhaps only slightly healthier than white sugar.
> 
> Most nutritionists recommend only part of your diet be made up of foods that are high in sugar. Sugar packs many calories and lacks the vitamins and minerals that your body needs to function normally. The big problem with *honey is that it contains roughly 55% fructose,* a type of sugar found mainly in fruits. Studies suggest high consumption of fructose could lead to several health problems, including obesity, heart disease and liver disease. Some studies have even shown that fructose actually drains minerals from your body.
> 
> *Calories in Honey*
> 
> Honey contains sugar and calories just like every other sweetener. One teaspoon of commercial natural honey contains 22 calories. Honey actually contains more calories than sugar, as one teaspoon of sugar contains 16 calories. However, honey isnt truly more fattening than sugar, considering the fact that honey is sweeter than sugar. Overall, honey contains about the same amount of calories as white sugar. 
> 
> *Benefits of Honey*
> ...

----------


## GunnyFreedom

If not, we can always try Yale:

http://news.yale.edu/2013/01/04/stud...ote-overeating





> Study suggests effect of fructose on brain may promote overeating
> 
> By Helen Dodson January 4, 2013
> 
> The brain processes fructose and glucose, the two forms of simple sugars, differently — impacting appetite, feelings of satisfaction, fullness, and potential weight gain, according to a study by Yale School of Medicine researchers published in the Journal of the American Medical Association.
> 
> Glucose, but not fructose, suppresses brain activity in regions that promote the desire to eat, whereas fructose feeding may promote overeating through its inability to effectively suppress food-seeking behavior, the scientists found.
> 
> continued

----------


## GunnyFreedom

No?  Maybe a joint study by USC and Oxford is more to your liking?

http://www.sciencenewsline.com/artic...716390042.html




> USC, Oxford Researchers Find High Fructose Corn Syrup-global Prevalence of Diabetes Link
> 
> Published: November 27, 2012. By University of Southern California - Health Sciences
> http://uscnews.usc.edu/archives/health/ 
> 
> Go to mobile page.
> LOS ANGELES AND OXFORD, U.K.— A new study by University of Southern California (USC) and University of Oxford researchers indicates that large amounts of high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) found in national food supplies across the world may be one explanation for the rising global epidemic of type 2 diabetes and resulting higher health care costs.
> 
> The study reports that countries that use HFCS in their food supply had a 20 percent higher prevalence of diabetes than countries that did not use HFCS. The analysis also revealed that HFCS's association with the "significantly increased prevalence of diabetes" occurred independent of total sugar intake and obesity levels.
> ...

----------


## PRB

> http://www.marksdailyapple.com/the-d...uide-to-sugar/


If fructose is bad, it shouldn't matter where it comes from, should it? Why is the fructose in honey harmless?

----------


## PRB

> No?  Maybe a joint study by USC and Oxford is more to your liking?
> 
> http://www.sciencenewsline.com/artic...716390042.html


"Growing evidence reveals that the body metabolizes fructose differently from glucose" Ok, we get that, so fructose is bad, glucose is ok, that still doesn't tell us why honey is harmless (unless you admit it's not).

----------


## PRB

> Anything ending with "ose" is sugar. Glucose is a sugar. Fructose is a sugar. Lactose is a sugar. Sucrose is a sugar. 
> 
> Honey: http://www.fitday.com/fitness-articl...s-natural.html


you're not seriously suggesting honey is the SAME composition as HFCS in terms of fructose, or that honey is equally harmful as HFCS, are you? That's insane!

----------


## PRB

> If not, we can always try Yale:
> 
> http://news.yale.edu/2013/01/04/stud...ote-overeating


You don't need to tell me fructose is bad, I accepted that (or am willing to), tell me why honey's fructose is harmless. Or admit it's just as harmful (I thought you did, but then you said it's not, so we're still here)

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Sigh..... 
> 
> I have had the same experience.   If you ask others, I'm sure you will find many have experienced the same thing.    This accounts for the increase in obesity we have been experiencing since the introduction if HFCS.


Science!

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> "Growing evidence reveals that the body metabolizes fructose differently from glucose" Ok, we get that, so fructose is bad, glucose is ok, that still doesn't tell us why honey is harmless (unless you admit it's not).


You seem to have an integrity problem to go along with your reading comprehension difficulties and your logic issues.

----------


## PRB

> Pretty sure you are the one ignoring the science.  Fructose is processed in the liver only.  Glucose is processed by every cell in the body, leading to a quicker uptake and greater satisfaction reflex, decreasing the desire for more.


I'm pretty sure this is the 5th or moreth time I'm saying this, FIND ME ONE STUDY THAT SAYS HONEY IS BETTER THAN HFCS, if you contend that HFCS for any reason related to fructose. I've totally accepted that fructose is worse than sucrose, now tell me why honey's fructose is somehow harmless. You won't find ONE, NOT ONE study that compares honey and HFCS, all you'll see is sucrose vs fructose & glucose. Whatever you find good or bad about sucrose, fructose, glucose, the same has to apply to honey, HFCS, unless you can find a reason it isn't.

----------


## PRB

> You seem to have an integrity problem to go along with your reading comprehension difficulties and your logic issues.


No, I don't. I've said from the beginning that HFCS, if it's in any way worse than sucrose, than honey has to take the same blame. Not one person was able to prove otherwise, you can give me a million reasons why HFCS is bad, when asked why, you resort to dosage, contamination or personal experience. If you simply stuck with "fructose is bad, end of story", and just admitted honey is the same, we'd be done here. I've never changed my argument.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I'm pretty sure this is the 5th or moreth time I'm saying this, FIND ME ONE STUDY THAT SAYS HONEY IS BETTER THAN HFCS, if you contend that HFCS for any reason related to fructose. I've totally accepted that fructose is worse than sucrose, now tell me why honey's fructose is somehow harmless. You won't find ONE, NOT ONE study that compares honey and HFCS, all you'll see is sucrose vs fructose & glucose. Whatever you find good or bad about sucrose, fructose, glucose, the same has to apply to honey, HFCS, unless you can find a reason it isn't.


I'm still pretty sure you are the only one talking about honey.

----------


## PRB

> I can taste the difference between the two.  One is more crisp and bubbly and doesn't leave such an aftertaste.


so of course that wouldn't bias your appetite.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> so of course that wouldn't bias your appetite.


Yes, because we all naturally want to consume less of the stuff that we like better.

----------


## PRB

> I'm still pretty sure you are the only one talking about honey.


yeah, I asked about it. And you seemed to have admitted if you drank the same dosage of honey as you did for HFCS, you'd be just as sick, I was asking if that's your admission and what I think you said, then you said no. So yes, I'm talking about honey, because I want to get the whole picture. I want to apply the scientific principles of why HFCS is bad, to everything I eat. I won't go drinking honey just because you told me HFCS is bad, as if it's the only poison in the world. So are you willing to apply the same standard you do to HFCS to honey?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> yeah, I asked about it. And you seemed to have admitted if you drank the same dosage of honey as you did for HFCS, you'd be just as sick, I was asking if that's your admission and what I think you said, then you said no. So yes, I'm talking about honey, because I want to get the whole picture. I want to apply the scientific principles of why HFCS is bad, to everything I eat. I won't go drinking honey just because you told me HFCS is bad, as if it's the only poison in the world. So are you willing to apply the same standard you do to HFCS to honey?


You are going to have to read that one again too.

----------


## Dr.3D

> I'm pretty sure this is the 5th or moreth time I'm saying this, FIND ME ONE STUDY THAT SAYS HONEY IS BETTER THAN HFCS, if you contend that HFCS for any reason related to fructose. I've totally accepted that fructose is worse than sucrose, now tell me why honey's fructose is somehow harmless. You won't find ONE, NOT ONE study that compares honey and HFCS, all you'll see is sucrose vs fructose & glucose. Whatever you find good or bad about sucrose, fructose, glucose, the same has to apply to honey, HFCS, unless you can find a reason it isn't.


WTF man, we are talking about HFCS, not honey.   It's best you get that through your head.   

If they were using honey the way they are using HFCS, then we would be talking about honey.

----------


## green73

> If fructose is bad, it shouldn't matter where it comes from, should it? Why is the fructose in honey harmless?


All sugar should be avoided habitually. People who consume honey as much as the average American consumes HFCS will not be the model of health. But it seems that would be incredibly hard to accomplish as honey is more satiating.

----------


## PRB

> WTF man, we are talking about HFCS, not honey.   It's best you get that through your head.   
> 
> *If they were using honey the way they are using HFCS, then we would be talking about honey*.


so can we agree the problem with HFCS is dosage, unnecessary abundance, and fructose? That honey would have the same problem if used and abused the same way?

----------


## PRB

> All sugar should be avoided habitually. People who consume honey as much as the average American consumes HFCS will not be the model of health. But it seems that would be incredibly hard to accomplish *as honey is more satiating*.


I don't buy that part, honey may be more expensive, but I am not aware of it being more satiating, short of people's anectdotal experiences (which are easily biased by what they think they know)

----------


## Dr.3D

> so can we agree the problem with HFCS is dosage, unnecessary abundance, and fructose? That honey would have the same problem if used and abused the same way?


I'll go along with that.   Now let's stop talking about honey.

Oh, and how much do you get paid to post here?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> so can we agree the problem with HFCS is dosage, unnecessary abundance, and fructose? That honey would have the same problem if used and abused the same way?


Still pretty sure you are the only person talking about honey.

----------


## PRB

> I'll go along with that.   Now let's stop talking about honey.
> 
> Oh, and how much do you get paid to post here?


That's fine, but anytime somebody brings up the negative consequences of HFCS, I'll remind them what's in honey. And anytime somebody claims honey is better than sugar or better than HFCS, I'll call them out & demand actual evidence. Not paid to post here.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> That's fine, but anytime somebody brings up the negative consequences of HFCS, I'll remind them what's in honey. And anytime somebody claims honey is better than sugar or better than HFCS, I'll call them out & demand actual evidence. Not paid to post here.


Nobody is drinking a half gallon of honey a day, every day, for 20 years.  A whole stinkin bunch of Americans are drinking that much HFCS.  You should probably familiarize yourself with the 'red herring' and the 'strawman' logical fallacies, since you seem to rely on them so heavily.

----------


## Dr.3D

> That's fine, but anytime somebody brings up the negative consequences of HFCS, I'll remind them what's in honey. And anytime somebody claims honey is better than sugar or better than HFCS, I'll call them out & demand actual evidence. Not paid to post here.


Just don't forget about the slight amount vitamins that are in one and not in the other.

----------


## PRB

> Just don't forget about the slight amount vitamins that are in one and not in the other.


I'm not aware of any vitamins that dilute or undo the effects of sugar.

----------


## Dr.3D

> I'm not aware of any vitamins that dilute or undo the effects of sugar.


Didn't say there was. But because of the vitamins, it is only slightly better.  Not so much as to make it good though.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

Nobody said anything about diluting the effects of fructose either.  Someone has a bad habit of trying to re-frame the debate into total irrelevancies.

----------


## Dr.3D

> Nobody said anything about diluting the effects of fructose either.  Someone has a bad habit of trying to re-frame the debate into total irrelevancies.


Probably just likes to argue.

I've gotten too old for that sort of thing and I believe I'll leave this thread now.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Probably just likes to argue.
> 
> I've gotten too old for that sort of thing and I believe I'll leave this thread now.


Hear here.  Good idea.  I think I will join you.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

There is a big difference between heated honey and unheated honey.  Same with anything heated vs. unheated.  Big deal.  Common sense.

It's also common sense that drinking any of this garbage is just garbage.  Stop running around like a chicken with its head cut off and drink water.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

PRB is actually member NewUser and Donnie Darko.  He got miffed when he failed to rebut all the replies to his DU/commie threads.  He reinvented himself as a replier only to threads.

----------


## PRB

> PRB is actually member NewUser and Donnie Darko.  He got miffed when he failed to rebut all the replies to his DU/commie threads.  He reinvented himself as a replier only to threads.


I have no DU commie threads, I have no idea why you think I am somebody else.

----------


## PRB

> There is a big difference between heated honey and unheated honey.


I'm interested in hearing more, care to share?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> It's genetically engineered corn that is banned in the majority of the free world. And for good reason.


Do you agree with that law?

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Do you agree with that law?


Does a frog bump it's ass on the rocks?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Does a frog bump it's ass on the rocks?


He did until Sola threw his football at it

----------


## Natural Citizen

> He did until Sola threw his football at it


Yeah, I don't get S_F. I got him a first down and he still punted. Whatever.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Yeah, I don't get S_F. I got him a first down and he still punted. Whatever.


Dems Fideing words

----------


## Christian Liberty

Maybe if we make fun of him  often enough he'll come back

[laughs at the fact that eduardo, Jmdrake, and TER will now never, ever make fun of him again]

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> I'm interested in hearing more, care to share?


"Share."  Sounds like more commie-speak.  Anyway, heat destroys.  Enzymes die at about 118 degrees.  Other nutrients are destroyed.  

Fast food ain't all that fast.  Ever work in a restaurant and clean one of those $#@!ing grills?  Takes half the night to rid the sloppy grease.  

Go get a burger.  How long does it take you to go there and stand in line?  Chew the hamburger forever and you'll never break it down, either in your mouth or in your gut.  Throw all the wrappers and $#@! in the trash.  Sit on the toilet for twenty minutes trying to get rid of it.  I'd rather just eat an avocado.

Take a can of pears.  They cut those things and put them in a can.  They add sugar.  They can it up and send it half way across the country and God knows where.  Somebody stocks the shelf.  You buy the can.  Open it up.  Throw the can in the trash or recyle it.  You eat some canned crap that does not taste as good as the real thing.  You get less nutrition.  I'd rather just pick a pear off the tree and eat it.

----------


## PRB

> "Share."  Sounds like more commie-speak.  Anyway, heat destroys.  Enzymes die at about 118 degrees.  Other nutrients are destroyed.


ok, so heated honey has less enzymes, fair enough. Do enzymes have anything to do with the negative effects of fructose, as we demonize HFCS for? Do any components of honey, whether vitamins, enzymes, minerals do anything to halt or reverse the alleged effects of fructose and glucose?

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> ok, so heated honey has less enzymes, fair enough. Do enzymes have anything to do with the negative effects of fructose, as we demonize HFCS for? Do any components of honey, whether vitamins, enzymes, minerals do anything to halt or reverse the alleged effects of fructose and glucose?


Are you simply presenting questions for which you have already formulated answers? 

You don't even know about enzymes, but you are trying to instruct others?

----------


## Ronin Truth

> *Mexican Coke in US Will Still Use Cane Sugar
> *NEW YORK November 6, 2013 (AP)
> By CANDICE CHOI AP Food Industry Writer 
> 
> Fans of "Mexican Coke" in the U.S. need not worry about losing the cane sugar that sweetens their favorite drink.
> 
> Americans who buy the glass bottles of Coke exported from Mexico may have been dismayed by recent online reports that an independent bottler that supplies the drinks planned to switch from sugar to fructose to cut costs. In the U.S., Coke is sweetened with high-fructose syrup, which has made bottles of "Mexicoke" a sought-after beverage in some circles.
> 
> Arca Continental, the Mexican bottler in question, stressed in a statement that it has no plans to change the sweetener for the "Coca-Cola Nostalgia" bottles it exports to the U.S. Those will continue to use 100 percent cane sugar, it said.
> ...


 http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireSto...sugar-20802838

Whew, that's a relief and a reprieve. CRISIS AVERTED!  We may now revert to DEFCON 5.

----------


## PRB

> Are you simply presenting questions for which you have already formulated answers? 
> 
> You don't even know about enzymes, but you are trying to instruct others?


Formulated answers? Not quite. Unwilling to change my mind in light of new evidence? Definitely not.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> Formulated answers? Not quite. Unwilling to change my mind in light of new evidence? Definitely not.


_New_ evidence?  You don't have any evidence to begin with.

----------


## PRB

> _New_ evidence?  You don't have any evidence to begin with.


All the evidence that I'm aware of tells me 1) honey has the same sugars as HFCS 2) no enzyme, mineral, vitamins undo, reverse or even dilute the effects of sugar. Am I wrong or missing something?

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> All the evidence that I'm aware of tells me 1) honey has the same sugars as HFCS 2) no enzyme, mineral, vitamins undo, reverse or even dilute the effects of sugar. Am I wrong or missing something?


Enzymes are central to a discussion on metabolism.  What you are missing is knowledge of basic k-12 chemistry.

----------


## PRB

> Enzymes are central to a discussion on metabolism.  What you are missing is knowledge of basic k-12 chemistry.


Enzymes are catalysts with many different specific functions, they're not all involved in metabolism. So for the sake of this discussion, do tell me which enzymes in honey destroyed will affect the negative alleged effects of fructose and glucose, if any. Feel free to cite me any K-12 or even college textbook about this, your blanket statement of "enzymes are central to metabolism discussion" won't tell anybody what it does to sugar effects. Sugar is either absorbed by your body and processed, or NOT absorbed, processed, stored. Which one is it? For the sake of discussion on fructose and glucose.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> Enzymes are catalysts with many different specific functions, they're not all involved in metabolism.


LOL!  I take back what I said.  You better start with pre-school.  Or at least go Google some more.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

Time to create your 4th user account in one month's time, Holmes.

----------


## shane77m

Damned corn lobby. Leave my Mexican Coke alone.

----------


## coastie

> They taste exactly the same to me honestly.






They don't even taste remotely the same, and the HFCS free stuff doesn't leave a film/aftertaste in your mouth...

----------


## amy31416

I don't care what you sweeten cola with, that $#@!'s gross.

What is the appeal? Why are so many addicted? It hurts my throat and tastes like diluted, fizzy motor oil.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I don't care what you sweeten cola with, that $#@!'s gross.
> 
> What is the appeal? Why are so many addicted? It hurts my throat and tastes like diluted, fizzy motor oil.


You have to pick between HFCS and cane sugar when you buy bottled sweet tea too.

----------


## Libertomics



----------


## amy31416

> You have to pick between HFCS and cane sugar when you buy bottled sweet tea too.


This ain't the South, boy! I drink tea without sugar whether iced or hot. On occasion I'll have hot tea with milk and sugar, just because it's nostalgic.

----------

