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)
14. The claims of health damage are not based on absorption rate.
Wed May 16, 2012, 11:45 AM
May 2012

The claims of danger from HFCS are in it's metabolism. A slow absorption rate would reduce it's metabolism and thus we'd have fewer problems with HFCS than other sugars.

Also, how come flatulence and IBS aren't reported with HFCS use? Still got D-fructose in it. Yes, some people claim it, but some people claim damn near anything causes their IBS.

Again, my point is the crusade against HFCS is a bad idea. It should be a crusade against sugar. 'Cause if the crusade against HFCS wins, we'll just switch to sucrose and still have the same problems with obesity, diabetes, etc.

About the only positive is it would probably make it easier to kill off corn subsidies.

Recommendations

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

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Health»This Is Your Brain On Sug...»Reply #14