Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
3. I'm pro-science. I'm neutral on HFCS.
Tue May 15, 2012, 05:48 PM
May 2012

Haven't seen any studies with proper controls that shows HFCS is bad.

I've seen plenty saying 100% fructose is bad. I've also seen plenty that say lots of sugar is bad.

Haven't seen any comparing lots of sucrose and lots of HFCS, and all the studies that get splashed around the Internet omit that control. Since it is such an obvious control, it is an omission that gives me pause about the anti-HFCS crowd.

Not saying sucrose and HFCS are the same, since they aren't - the fructose in HFCS is artificially created, so half of the fructose is a slightly different shape than natural fructose. That half could cause the whole mix to be processed differently. Or it could turn out that the oxygen bond between the glucose and fructose in sucrose is somehow critical. But both of those have yet to be demonstrated.

And if HFCS does cause problems, I'd like to know. Though I expect the major change would be lots of farmers would grow sugar beets in place of corn.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Health»This Is Your Brain On Sug...»Reply #3