It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

High fructose corn syrup seeks sweeter, more positive name name: corn sugar

page: 1
41
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+7 more 
posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 04:49 PM
link   

High fructose corn syrup seeks sweeter, more positive name name: corn sugar


www.nydailynews.com...

The makers of high fructose corn syrup want to sweeten up its image with a new name: corn sugar.

The bid to rename the sweetener by the Corn Refiners Association comes as Americans' concerns about health and obesity have sent consumption of high fructose corn syrup, used in soft drinks but also in bread, cereal and other foods, to a 20-year low.
(visit the link for the full news article)






edit on 9/14/2010 by Erasurehead because: fix link




posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 04:49 PM
link   
The following statement from the article is a lie. They should be ashamed of hiding the truth about HFCS. They can change the name all they want but it won't change the fact that HFCS causes obesity at a higher rate than sugar cane.


Sugar and high fructose corn syrup are nutritionally the same, and there's no evidence that the sweetener is any worse for the body than sugar, said Michael Jacobson, executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest. The bottom line is people should consume less of all sugars, Jacobson said.

"Soda pop sweetened with sugar is every bit as conducive to obesity as soda pop sweetened with high fructose corn syrup," he said.


Liar, Liar, pants on fire...

Here is the proof of their lies. There was a study done earlier this year at Princeton University.


Bartley Hoebel and his colleagues offered rats unlimited rat chow and either high-fructose corn syrup diluted in water at half the strength found in soft drinks, or sucrose in water at the same level found in soft drinks. In the first experiment, after eight weeks, the rats with access to high-fructose corn syrup gained significantly more weight than rats with access to sucrose. In the second experiment, the rats were followed for six months: The rats that had high-fructose corn syrup gained much more weight, added more abdominal fat, and had higher levels of triglycerides in their blood compared with rats that drank sucrose-sweetened water.

BOTTOM LINE: Rats fed high-fructose corn syrup gained more weight, put on more abdominal fat, and had higher levels of blood fats than other rats fed larger amounts of sucrose.


www.boston.com...

Call it "corn syrup" or "corn sugar" its still garbage that causes obesity all in the name of making a buck.


[url=http://www.nydailynews.com/money/2010/09/14/2010-09-14_corn_syrup_seeks_to_sweeten_its_image_with_a_new_name_corn_sugar.html]www.nydailynews.com[ /url]
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 05:15 PM
link   
Hehe yeah we saw this at work today as well. I work in the Herb and Vitamin industry research and manufacturing side...big corporate seems to do this quite often. The biggest example I can recall is Hydrogenated vegetable oils name was changed to Vegetable Sterols, or Vegetable Stearines.

It lets you know that corporate consciousness cares nothing for your health and well being, just your pocketbook.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Erasurehead
 


No, it's not a lie. And that one study is far from PROOF. Sucrose and HFCS are, metablically, 99% identical. They both contain Fructose and Glucose. While the HFCS used in soft-drinks has a higher Fructose content, the metabolic effects are nearly identical.

The study above is actually one of the only studies showing a significant difference, and it's in rats, and it's when feeding them considerably more than a rat would normally consume in a day. So....it's extremely misleading.

There are plenty of studies showing the similarities between these two dangerous sweeteners....

Supplement: High-Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS): Everything You Wanted to Know, but Were Afraid to Ask


Data from a short-term study comparing consumption of beverages sweetened with fructose, glucose, high-fructose corn syrup, and sucrose suggest that high-fructose corn syrup and sucrose increase postprandial triacylglycerol to an extent comparable with that induced by 100% fructose alone. Increased consumption of fructose-sweetened beverages along with increased prevalence of obesity, metabolic syndrome, and type 2 diabetes underscore the importance of investigating the metabolic consequences of fructose consumption in carefully controlled experiments.


A Critical Examination of the Evidence Relating High Fructose Corn Syrup and Weight Gain


Based on the currently available evidence, the expert panel concluded that HFCS does not appear to contribute to overweight and obesity any differently than do other energy sources. Research recommendations were made to improve our understanding of the association of HFCS and weight gain.


Effects of high-fructose corn syrup and sucrose consumption on circulating glucose, insulin, leptin, and ghrelin and on appetite in normal-weight women


These short-term results suggest that, when fructose is consumed in the form of HFCS, the measured metabolic responses do not differ from Suc in lean women. Further research is required to examine appetite responses and to determine if these findings hold true for obese individuals, males, or longer periods.


1 study against a large body of evidence suggesting there is no significant difference between sucrose and HFCS.....So, they're not liars.





edit on 14-9-2010 by DevolutionEvolvd because: it's getting hot in here




edit on 14-9-2010 by DevolutionEvolvd because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 05:43 PM
link   
OMG seriously? I see you must work in the corn industry. Sigh damnit now Im going to have to find my sources for the multitude of issues that are raised by using corn as a sweetener, or for much of anything at all.

But just a few things for you to ready your comeback...HFCS -is made entirely of Genetically engineered corn(now adays) there might be a couple issues there no?, its chockfull of arakiodonic acid(cancer causing), Then lets look at the socio economic factors: they quash the entire cane and beet industry for sugar source material, continuing to leave some countries like Jamaica without a centuries long held source for exports, and Oregon for use of the sugar beet.

Im going totally off the cuff so Im going to have to compile some real research and put this to rest, Im so tired of copy and pasting being called research into VALID studies...pu-leaze



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd
reply to post by Erasurehead
 


No, it's not a lie. And that one study is far from PROOF. Sucrose and HFCS are, metablically, 99% identical. They both contain Fructose and Glucose. While the HFCS used in soft-drinks has a higher Fructose content, the metabolic effects are nearly identical.



The sucrose and fructose levels are VERY different in HFCS and Cane sugar.

Sucrose and fructose are processed differently by the liver.

Sucrose primarily processed by the body (not forced into storage) and a small percentage of the calories goes to storage as fat unless too many calories are consumed. The processing of sucrose in the liver is fairly low impact.

Fructose immediately stores most of the calories as fat even if the calories are not in excess. In large amounts (Like in HFCS) fructose not only forces primary storage of calories as fat but causes damage to the liver which does not efficiently process fructose without causing problems. These problems are almost identical to the problems caused when the body processes alcohol.

The use of hfcs in soda is as damaging to the liver as consuming alcohol without any of the (minor but real) benefits.

Fructose and sucrose are not processed the same in the liver. They are vastly different when the chemistry is studied.

Simple calories are not an answer.

You must look at the effect that they have on the human body to see what is going on but that isn't something HFCS advocates are willing to do.

It's spelled G-R-E-E-D.

The greed for profit leads to the wholesale lies that prop up the use of poisons in processed foods.

HFCS = GREED



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 06:02 PM
link   
reply to post by badgerprints
 


Nicely stated, it makes you wonder who these people are that just jump on to a thread defending a big corporate ingredient. They must get paid well to try to lead people around by their noses.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 06:03 PM
link   
reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd
 


Alright! A voice of sanity.

Chemicals are chemicals and it makes little if any difference to the body at the cellular and molecular level where the sugar comes from. That's why a grass and a root are able to provide us with the same product to begin with......the chemicals are the same.
Relying on rats for research, being fed larger than normal amounts of anything is going to cause a problem.
To say or think differenlty is NOT A LIE; because you choose to believe something based on a test does not mean you know the truth.
I'll await the proof that the sugars are somehow chemically different, are metabolised differently, and proof of other claims against HFCS before making up my mind.
And why do people always retort back with "you must getting paid/work for/shill for/" and similar statements when someone disagrees? That is incredibly reactionary, rude, and usually very wrong. And makes the person doing it look like they would rather attack the people who don't agree than do balanced research. I really hate that, don't you?



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 06:05 PM
link   
Yeah I see they are back with this campaign, they put ads into xfire and such with this.

sweetscam.com...



Most of what you think you know about sweeteners is probably wrong. Some of this is a product of simple misunderstandings. The rest is a giant scam.


but yeah they are screaming its good for yew!



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 06:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Shadowfoot
 


Well, yeah, but we're talking about METABOLIC EFFECTS. And sucrose is no angel. Both are detrimental. Both are at least partly in responsible for the obesity epidemic, diabetes, cancer, heart disease and many other chronic disorders.

You can't be serious thinking I work for the corn industry....????


edit on 14-9-2010 by DevolutionEvolvd because: of crazy accusations



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 06:10 PM
link   
reply to post by stars15k
 


Why wait if you can eliminate them from your diet as much as possible? I agree we need more research but till proven otherwise, I will continue to try to elimate it from our diet as much as possible. We have a 7 year old and those with kids know that its all but impossible to eliminate them completely.

Food also seems to taste better. My case in point: Costco sells glass bottles of Coke from Mexico which uses cane sugar. It tastes much better than the same version from the US using high fructose.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by badgerprints

The sucrose and fructose levels are VERY different in HFCS and Cane sugar.


No....High fructose corn syrup found in soft drinks is about 55% fructose and 45% glucose. Sucrose, or can sugar, is a molecule that breaks down into half glucose/half fructose. (1)


Sucrose and fructose are processed differently by the liver.


Actually, fructose is ONLY metabolized in the liver. Glucose can be metabolized by nearly every cell in the body.


Sucrose primarily processed by the body (not forced into storage) and a small percentage of the calories goes to storage as fat unless too many calories are consumed. The processing of sucrose in the liver is fairly low impact.

Fructose immediately stores most of the calories as fat even if the calories are not in excess. In large amounts (Like in HFCS) fructose not only forces primary storage of calories as fat but causes damage to the liver which does not efficiently process fructose without causing problems. These problems are almost identical to the problems caused when the body processes alcohol.


Actually, no, again. Fructose alone doesn't drive fat storage; produces almost no insulin response (which is the fat storage hormone). The byproduct of fructose metabolism in the liver is VLDL Triglycerides, which is fat. But it doesn't just automatically run to the nearest fat cell. It depends on the state of your metabolic hormones (insulin, glucagon). Fructose is extremely lipogenic when consumed with glucose. The glucose spikes insulin, driving fat deposition, and the fructose produces fat in the blood....which is almost immideately shuttled to the fat cells while the body burns glucose for fuel.

BTW, I'm not sure you realize this, but, sucrose IS fructose and glucose. Just sayin.


The use of hfcs in soda is as damaging to the liver as consuming alcohol without any of the (minor but real) benefits.


No doubt. NAFLD is directly attributed to the increased amount of fructose in the diet, which is found in HFCS and sucrose.


Fructose and sucrose are not processed the same in the liver. They are vastly different when the chemistry is studied.


Well, sort of. Like I said, sucrose breaks down into fructose and glucose. So....I think you may be a lil confused.




posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 06:42 PM
link   
There isn't anything wrong with corn sugar. Mmmm mmm corn sugar. Eat it in everything, kids! Eat it in your breakfast, eat it in your lunch, eat it for a snack, and eat it at dinner! Eat it plain! Eat corn sugar on corn sugar!Yummy ooey gooey corn sugar. It'll make you happy on the inside!



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd


Like I said, sucrose breaks down into fructose and glucose. So....I think you may be a lil confused.



I stand corrected.

Yes, I was using sucrose where I should have said glucose so I was a bit confused. I can't find the video I got this info from.
The statements I made are based on a 2 hour lecture from a gentleman who has studied this for years and his results are stated with long multisabyllic scientific prose that gives me cramps.

Your other point about glucose/fructose ratio in HFCS is correcdt but I was talking about the difference in ratio between sucrose and HFCS.

Anyway. HFCS versus sucrose.......
It does come down to the liver and the resulting chemistry.

The HFCS glucose/fructose combination along with methods of delivery (drinks with no fiber to slow down uptake) and the way the body and specifically the liver react to it are the core problem.

The argument put forth by HFCS advocates that it is identical to cane sugar are only plausibly valid until the point of ingestion.

After that, the differences are remarkable and dangerous.






edit on 14-9-2010 by badgerprints because: fixin some stuff I said. That ok with you? Damned little boxes.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd
 


I wouldn't be surprised to see a corn industry spokesman posting here. They are on a massive marketing blitz these days.

If there is no difference as you state, please explain the results of the experiment I posted where 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.

I'm all ears..



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 07:28 PM
link   
I saw this on TV and about gagged. Any time I watch that damned machine I'm reminded of why I don't.

The MSM is covering it like it's actually newsworthy (of course) and on top of that the HFCS companies are putting out ads.


You know why?

Because they're losing BIG money -- because of us!!


Sugar is not good for you to begin with.

HFCS is worse, because it absorbs nutrients from your body and takes them with it in your poop and pee. It also fuels cancer and has a lot of other problems that have been demonstrated by science over and over.

Any time a big company starts getting hit in the pocket like this of course they are going to do whatever they can to stop it, no matter right or wrong. Corporations themselves are the issuing disease.


edit on 14-9-2010 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 07:33 PM
link   
Don't know about this HFCS
Whats wrong with good ol' Aspartame ?



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProRipp
Don't know about this HFCS


You must not read your ingredient labels ever. I realize most people don't seem to but it's a good habit to be in, just like "knowledge is power" don't you know.


HFCS is in nearly all soda... As a cheaper alternative to sugar as a sweetener.

It's in candy, fruit juice, all kinds of stuff. They put "corn syrup solids" in non-liquid stuff they want to sweeten.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProRipp
Don't know about this HFCS
Whats wrong with good ol' Aspartame ?




HFCS = High Fructose Corn Syrup

Aspartame and other artificial sweeteners are bad...mmkayy? (as is HFCS...but in different ways)

Aside from the fact that some of the artificial sweeteners started out as things like poison in a lab and were re-purposed when they were found to taste sweet, they cause insulin spikes with no sugar for the insulin to use.


Insulin floods the bloodstream to utilize sugar when the blood sugar levels are high. This is normal (although high blood sugar levels should not be)

Insulin is also released into the blood as a conditioned response to the taste of a sweet item like....soda.
If there is not an elevated level of sugar in the blood then the normal blood sugar levels are depleted, leading to ...... hunger....thirst.....and another sweet but low calorie drink....leading to .....raised insulin levels.again and again..

Insulin resistance is the result which leads to a myriad of other issues.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 08:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Erasurehead
 


Really? Well, just go reading through my threads and tell me if you think I'm a corn representative. lolz



new topics

top topics



 
41
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join