Science vs the Fructose/HFCS Conspiracy

Nutrition
101

[quote]honkie wrote:

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
The regular Pepsi product continues to use HFCS, and undoubtedly will continue to do so for cost reasons. HFCS is cheap. Cane sugar, particular in the United States due to government propping-up of the price, is relatively expensive.

They have introduced two new products using only cane sugar, or cane sugar and apple juice, as premium products.

[/quote]

They plan to phase it out[/quote]
I was wrong then. I’m surprised – not that I’d be wrong on a prediction, because that happens – but because I’m surprised they’d want to spend the extra money.

Wholesale price is now over 40 cents per pound, or over 88 cents per kilo.

There are about 234 grams of sugar in a 2 liter bottle of Pepsi.

So that would be over 20 cents worth of sugar.

I’m astonished that they would be willing to pay that much when they don’t have to, as they and the Coca-Cola company have succeeded in weaning the taste of their consumers to HFCS through very careful work over the years.

Do you have a link on the planned phase-out?

102

Dr. Pepper is supposed to have released a Heritage Dr. Pepper which uses the original recipe, including sugar. This could be in response to both the negative press about HFCS but also a shift in agricultural policy reducing corn subsidies + increased demand on corn crops because of biofuels (either demand for corn or for land to grow other fuel crops) which will lead to higher cost for corn.

I like the original taste of DP (you can currently get it as Dublin DP). The flavor is very light, normal DP tastes gaudy in comparison.

103

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:

[quote]honkie wrote:

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
The regular Pepsi product continues to use HFCS, and undoubtedly will continue to do so for cost reasons. HFCS is cheap. Cane sugar, particular in the United States due to government propping-up of the price, is relatively expensive.

They have introduced two new products using only cane sugar, or cane sugar and apple juice, as premium products.

[/quote]

They plan to phase it out[/quote]
I was wrong then. I’m surprised – not that I’d be wrong on a prediction, because that happens – but because I’m surprised they’d want to spend the extra money.

Wholesale price is now over 40 cents per pound, or over 88 cents per kilo.

There are about 234 grams of sugar in a 2 liter bottle of Pepsi.

So that would be over 20 cents worth of sugar.

I’m astonished that they would be willing to pay that much when they don’t have to, as they and the Coca-Cola company have succeeded in weaning the taste of their consumers to HFCS through very careful work over the years.

Do you have a link on the planned phase-out?[/quote]

Inside information - think about marketing over coke… huge campaign to follow I bet!

104

Something I can’t work out - the government want tax junk food that includes HFCS yet they subsidize the corn growers with our tax money…

105

[quote]MODOK wrote:
Coca-Cola isn’t phasing out their cane sugar product, Passover Coke… due to it being Kosher and all for the Hebrews. Coke from Mexico also is made with cane sugar, but I’m not sure if they’d phase that out or not.[/quote]

Cane sugar is reasonably priced outside of the United States.

Within the US, the government has artificially jacked the price.

106

[quote]honkie wrote:

[quote]Mikael LS wrote:
Can you people post the studies supporting your claims? It is considered bad argumentaion to talk about studies without actually referencing them. [/quote]

You’re kidding right? Have you not even read “Seeds of Deception”? There are a ton of studies and references in that book alone.

Then there is “Genetic Roulette” That goes through many of the studies and breaks them down more simply.

There are just too many to put them up here but all it takes is 5 minutes of research to find them. I recommend you get the books and read them.

Here is some more info.

http://www.celsias.com/article/monsanto-submitted-fake-scientific-data-says-forme/

http://foodfreedom.wordpress.com/2010/02/22/health-scandal-of-the-decade-â??-monsantoâ??s-gmo-perversion-of-food/

http://corporatecrime.wordpress.com/2009/10/17/monsanto-lies-again-and-again-and-again/

http://www.infowars.com/gmo-scandal-the-long-term-effects-of-genetically-modified-food-on-humans/

http://www.infowars.com/death-of-the-bees-gmo-crops-and-the-decline-of-bee-colonies-in-north-america/

[/quote]

So your sources are 4 amateur websites (wordpress, anyone?), Huffington Post, and TWO links to Alex Jones’ website?

(For those who don’t know who Alex Jones is, he’s the head conspiracy nutjob around the US and thinks the gubment is responsible for 9/11 and for spraying the population with mind control chemicals from airliners.)

Another perspective:

Oh, and for the idiot claiming Alan’s opinion wasn’t valid because he wasn’t an MD, your argument is faulty. There are THOUSANDS of MD’s who completely disagree with the fructose alarmism hypothesis.

107

[quote]Stronghold wrote:
There are THOUSANDS of MD’s who completely disagree with the fructose alarmism hypothesis.[/quote]

To get people into perspective (without strawmen), a lot of these alarmists are basically arguing the following: High Fructose Corn Syrup is the main factor that caused the obesity epidemic in America. To them, it’s not the general increase in calories, the decrease in physical activity, or the increased availability of nutrient-sparse processed foods (among dozens of other factors) that has led to a society ridden with obesity, but High Fructose Corn Syrup. No one is arguing against the fact that consuming high amounts of empty calories in any form, if it be sucrose or high fructose corn syrup, is healthy in any way, or going against the fact that high amounts of fructose in the diet can act as a negative-partitioning agent as well as has numerous negative health implications. What people are arguing is that it isn’t likely that High Fructose Corn Syrup alone is the conspiracy in America that has led to increased rates of obesity.

108

[quote]Josh Rider wrote:

[quote]Stronghold wrote:
There are THOUSANDS of MD’s who completely disagree with the fructose alarmism hypothesis.[/quote]

To get people into perspective (without strawmen), a lot of these alarmist are basically arguing the following: High Fructose Corn Syrup is the main factor that caused the obesity epidemic in America. To them, it’s not the general increase in calories, the decrease in physical activity, or the increased availability of nutrient-sparse processed foods (among dozens of other factors) that has led to a society ridden with obesity, but High Fructose Corn Syrup. No one is arguing against the fact that consuming high amounts of empty calories in any form, if it be sucrose or high fructose corn syrup, is healthy in any way, or going against the fact that high amounts of fructose in the diet can act as a negative-partitioning agent as well as has numerous negative health implications. What people are arguing is that it isn’t likely that High Fructose Corn Syrup alone is the conspiracy in America that has led to increased rates of obesity. [/quote]

This sums up my thoughts nicely.

109

Yeah, it’s pretty silly to think this is the only contributor to obesity. But it is still a contributor. I don’t why everything has to be all or nothing.

110

[quote]Josh Rider wrote:

[quote]Stronghold wrote:
There are THOUSANDS of MD’s who completely disagree with the fructose alarmism hypothesis.[/quote]

To get people into perspective (without strawmen), a lot of these alarmists are basically arguing the following: High Fructose Corn Syrup is the main factor that caused the obesity epidemic in America. To them, it’s not the general increase in calories, the decrease in physical activity, or the increased availability of nutrient-sparse processed foods (among dozens of other factors) that has led to a society ridden with obesity, but High Fructose Corn Syrup. No one is arguing against the fact that consuming high amounts of empty calories in any form, if it be sucrose or high fructose corn syrup, is healthy in any way, or going against the fact that high amounts of fructose in the diet can act as a negative-partitioning agent as well as has numerous negative health implications. What people are arguing is that it isn’t likely that High Fructose Corn Syrup alone is the conspiracy in America that has led to increased rates of obesity. [/quote]

No that is not what we are saying - if you read the original post he gives the impression the HFCS is safe… it’s not - not even looking at the fructose factor you must take in to account the GMO concerns that have been scientifically (but covered up in the US) shown to cause a number of serous health risks… HFCS is all GMO.

111

I actually watched about an hour of the video that Deb posted. Maybe he talks more about HFCS near the end, but his point from what I watched was that fructose is bad for you. It doesn’t really matter if it’s from HFCS or sucrose, fructose is metabolized differently by the liver than glucose, and can only be metabolized in the liver (regardless of the source). According to the studies he cited, we are consuming far more fructose (from increased sucrose, HFCS, and fruit juices) than in the past, and that is a factor in the obesity epidemic. His point wasn’t that HFCS causes obesity, it was that an increase in total fructose consumption from any source causes obesity. In regard to athletes, I thought it was interesting that he did say fructose consumption actually works well for quickly restoring depleted liver glycogen stores in high level athletes.

And honkie, while I agree that HFCS is unhealthy, I can’t figure out why you think sucrose is so much better. It’s only 5% difference and as supertrain-int pointed out, in the small intestine it’s already broken down into monosaccharides. So if you consume 100 grams of sucrose or 100 grams of HFCS, in the small intestine the only difference is 55 grams of fructose from HFCS instead of 50 grams of fructose from sucrose. But structurally, the fructose in either case is the same at this point in the digestive system. Also before questioning his education perhaps you should critique your own. Check out this grammar and spelling.

[quote] honkie wrote:
Your assumptions are wrong about the process in which HFCS goes through is the same as sucrose. I will post the studies latter as heading out for brunch (organic restaurant of cause)…More on this latter - have to run… They are not the same as already pointed it out and if you even bothered to read even one of the biochemistry books you say you have you would know this…I can’t believe the level of stupidity on this form especially when I hear comments like this. [/quote] And come on, how hard would it really have been to pull several pertinent references from your books and cite them here? You did say you would post the studies, yet when asked to deliver, you accused supertrain-int of being lazy? Unbelievable

112

[quote]Stronghold wrote:

[quote]honkie wrote:

[quote]Mikael LS wrote:
Can you people post the studies supporting your claims? It is considered bad argumentaion to talk about studies without actually referencing them. [/quote]

You’re kidding right? Have you not even read “Seeds of Deception”? There are a ton of studies and references in that book alone.

Then there is “Genetic Roulette” That goes through many of the studies and breaks them down more simply.

There are just too many to put them up here but all it takes is 5 minutes of research to find them. I recommend you get the books and read them.

Here is some more info.

http://www.celsias.com/article/monsanto-submitted-fake-scientific-data-says-forme/

http://ga3.org/campaign/alfalfaEIS2/explanation

http://foodfreedom.wordpress.com/2010/02/22/health-scandal-of-the-decade-�¢??-monsanto�¢??s-gmo-perversion-of-food/

http://corporatecrime.wordpress.com/2009/10/17/monsanto-lies-again-and-again-and-again/

http://www.infowars.com/gmo-scandal-the-long-term-effects-of-genetically-modified-food-on-humans/

http://www.infowars.com/death-of-the-bees-gmo-crops-and-the-decline-of-bee-colonies-in-north-america/

[/quote]

So your sources are 4 amateur websites (wordpress, anyone?), Huffington Post, and TWO links to Alex Jones’ website?

(For those who don’t know who Alex Jones is, he’s the head conspiracy nutjob around the US and thinks the gubment is responsible for 9/11 and for spraying the population with mind control chemicals from airliners.)

Another perspective:

Oh, and for the idiot claiming Alan’s opinion wasn’t valid because he wasn’t an MD, your argument is faulty. There are THOUSANDS of MD’s who completely disagree with the fructose alarmism hypothesis.[/quote]

What are your views on GMO then?

In regards to the 9/11 comment, if you honestly believe the BS that’s been fed to you by mainstream media outlets and the governments lies, I feel sorry for you.

113

[quote]honkie wrote:

No that is not what we are saying - if you read the original post he gives the impression the HFCS is safe… it’s not - not even looking at the fructose factor you must take in to account the GMO concerns that have been scientifically (but covered up in the US) shown to cause a number of serous health risks… HFCS is all GMO.
[/quote]

“Genetically Modified Organisms” is a buzz word that easily scares people who have no science background since it sounds evil and scientific. Just because something is genetically modified, doesn’t mean it has an increased health risk to humans (although, I’ve heard in some cases, it does). However, I’d be happy to see some solid evidence that HFCS is bad because it is genetically modified and not because of it’s fructose content or the fact that it’s empty calories (I doubt “solid” evidence exists in this regards but still).

114

[quote]staticx wrote:

[quote]Stronghold wrote:

[quote]honkie wrote:

[quote]Mikael LS wrote:
Can you people post the studies supporting your claims? It is considered bad argumentaion to talk about studies without actually referencing them. [/quote]

You’re kidding right? Have you not even read “Seeds of Deception”? There are a ton of studies and references in that book alone.

Then there is “Genetic Roulette” That goes through many of the studies and breaks them down more simply.

There are just too many to put them up here but all it takes is 5 minutes of research to find them. I recommend you get the books and read them.

Here is some more info.

http://www.celsias.com/article/monsanto-submitted-fake-scientific-data-says-forme/

http://foodfreedom.wordpress.com/2010/02/22/health-scandal-of-the-decade-�?�¢??-monsanto�?�¢??s-gmo-perversion-of-food/

http://corporatecrime.wordpress.com/2009/10/17/monsanto-lies-again-and-again-and-again/

http://www.infowars.com/gmo-scandal-the-long-term-effects-of-genetically-modified-food-on-humans/

http://www.infowars.com/death-of-the-bees-gmo-crops-and-the-decline-of-bee-colonies-in-north-america/

[/quote]

So your sources are 4 amateur websites (wordpress, anyone?), Huffington Post, and TWO links to Alex Jones’ website?

(For those who don’t know who Alex Jones is, he’s the head conspiracy nutjob around the US and thinks the gubment is responsible for 9/11 and for spraying the population with mind control chemicals from airliners.)

Another perspective:

Oh, and for the idiot claiming Alan’s opinion wasn’t valid because he wasn’t an MD, your argument is faulty. There are THOUSANDS of MD’s who completely disagree with the fructose alarmism hypothesis.[/quote]

What are your views on GMO then?

In regards to the 9/11 comment, if you honestly believe the BS that’s been fed to you by mainstream media outlets and the governments lies, I feel sorry for you.

[/quote]

By identifying yourself as a 9/11 truther, you are qualifying that you have little regard for actual science but rather cherrypick information that seems to support your paranoid conspiracy theories. There are numerous threads on this board devoted to truthers so let’s not get our whackjob conspiracies mixed up in this thread. I don’t believe everything that the “gubment” says, but I believe the science and the real science says 9/11 truthers are wrong. If your idea of “do your own research” is to read some partial or irrelevant information from some conspiracy nut’s blog, then you should probably get off of the internet and go find yourself a job with your name on your shirt because this science and learnin’ thing isn’t for you.

My views on GMO are a very scientific “it depends”. There are so many applications to which that term applies, it is intellectually dishonest to throw everything under one label and call it bad. Running around thinking the sky is falling because food is GMO is about as general and idiotic as running around thinking that the sky is falling because your food is “processed” or “unorganic”.

115

[quote]Stronghold wrote:

[quote]staticx wrote:

[quote]Stronghold wrote:

[quote]honkie wrote:

[quote]Mikael LS wrote:
Can you people post the studies supporting your claims? It is considered bad argumentaion to talk about studies without actually referencing them. [/quote]

You’re kidding right? Have you not even read “Seeds of Deception”? There are a ton of studies and references in that book alone.

Then there is “Genetic Roulette” That goes through many of the studies and breaks them down more simply.

There are just too many to put them up here but all it takes is 5 minutes of research to find them. I recommend you get the books and read them.

Here is some more info.

http://www.celsias.com/article/monsanto-submitted-fake-scientific-data-says-forme/

http://foodfreedom.wordpress.com/2010/02/22/health-scandal-of-the-decade-�??�?�¢??-monsanto�??�?�¢??s-gmo-perversion-of-food/

http://corporatecrime.wordpress.com/2009/10/17/monsanto-lies-again-and-again-and-again/

http://www.infowars.com/gmo-scandal-the-long-term-effects-of-genetically-modified-food-on-humans/

http://www.infowars.com/death-of-the-bees-gmo-crops-and-the-decline-of-bee-colonies-in-north-america/

[/quote]

So your sources are 4 amateur websites (wordpress, anyone?), Huffington Post, and TWO links to Alex Jones’ website?

(For those who don’t know who Alex Jones is, he’s the head conspiracy nutjob around the US and thinks the gubment is responsible for 9/11 and for spraying the population with mind control chemicals from airliners.)

Another perspective:

Oh, and for the idiot claiming Alan’s opinion wasn’t valid because he wasn’t an MD, your argument is faulty. There are THOUSANDS of MD’s who completely disagree with the fructose alarmism hypothesis.[/quote]

What are your views on GMO then?

In regards to the 9/11 comment, if you honestly believe the BS that’s been fed to you by mainstream media outlets and the governments lies, I feel sorry for you.

[/quote]

By identifying yourself as a 9/11 truther, you are qualifying that you have little regard for actual science but rather cherrypick information that seems to support your paranoid conspiracy theories. There are numerous threads on this board devoted to truthers so let’s not get our whackjob conspiracies mixed up in this thread. I don’t believe everything that the “gubment” says, but I believe the science and the real science says 9/11 truthers are wrong. If your idea of “do your own research” is to read some partial or irrelevant information from some conspiracy nut’s blog, then you should probably get off of the internet and go find yourself a job with your name on your shirt because this science and learnin’ thing isn’t for you.

My views on GMO are a very scientific “it depends”. There are so many applications to which that term applies, it is intellectually dishonest to throw everything under one label and call it bad. Running around thinking the sky is falling because food is GMO is about as general and idiotic as running around thinking that the sky is falling because your food is “processed” or “unorganic”.[/quote]

So explain what happened to building 7

116

What about the Christmas day underwear bomber

117

[quote]Josh Rider wrote:

[quote]Stronghold wrote:
There are THOUSANDS of MD’s who completely disagree with the fructose alarmism hypothesis.[/quote]

To get people into perspective (without strawmen), a lot of these alarmists are basically arguing the following: High Fructose Corn Syrup is the main factor that caused the obesity epidemic in America. To them, it’s not the general increase in calories, the decrease in physical activity, or the increased availability of nutrient-sparse processed foods (among dozens of other factors) that has led to a society ridden with obesity, but High Fructose Corn Syrup. No one is arguing against the fact that consuming high amounts of empty calories in any form, if it be sucrose or high fructose corn syrup, is healthy in any way, or going against the fact that high amounts of fructose in the diet can act as a negative-partitioning agent as well as has numerous negative health implications. What people are arguing is that it isn’t likely that High Fructose Corn Syrup alone is the conspiracy in America that has led to increased rates of obesity. [/quote(]

Thumbs Up)

118

[quote]honkie wrote:

So explain what happened to building 7[/quote]

Seriously dude. google it - popular mechanics is a good start (World Trade Center 7 Report Puts 9/11 Conspiracy Theory to Rest). Even wikipedia because it at least references it sources!

Please surprise me with a non-conspiracy theory response!

119

[quote]honkie wrote:

[quote]Stronghold wrote:

[quote]staticx wrote:

[quote]Stronghold wrote:

[quote]honkie wrote:

[quote]Mikael LS wrote:
Can you people post the studies supporting your claims? It is considered bad argumentaion to talk about studies without actually referencing them. [/quote]

You’re kidding right? Have you not even read “Seeds of Deception”? There are a ton of studies and references in that book alone.

Then there is “Genetic Roulette” That goes through many of the studies and breaks them down more simply.

There are just too many to put them up here but all it takes is 5 minutes of research to find them. I recommend you get the books and read them.

Here is some more info.

http://www.celsias.com/article/monsanto-submitted-fake-scientific-data-says-forme/

http://foodfreedom.wordpress.com/2010/02/22/health-scandal-of-the-decade-�??�??�?�¢??-monsanto�??�??�?�¢??s-gmo-perversion-of-food/

http://corporatecrime.wordpress.com/2009/10/17/monsanto-lies-again-and-again-and-again/

http://www.infowars.com/gmo-scandal-the-long-term-effects-of-genetically-modified-food-on-humans/

http://www.infowars.com/death-of-the-bees-gmo-crops-and-the-decline-of-bee-colonies-in-north-america/

[/quote]

So your sources are 4 amateur websites (wordpress, anyone?), Huffington Post, and TWO links to Alex Jones’ website?

(For those who don’t know who Alex Jones is, he’s the head conspiracy nutjob around the US and thinks the gubment is responsible for 9/11 and for spraying the population with mind control chemicals from airliners.)

Another perspective:

Oh, and for the idiot claiming Alan’s opinion wasn’t valid because he wasn’t an MD, your argument is faulty. There are THOUSANDS of MD’s who completely disagree with the fructose alarmism hypothesis.[/quote]

What are your views on GMO then?

In regards to the 9/11 comment, if you honestly believe the BS that’s been fed to you by mainstream media outlets and the governments lies, I feel sorry for you.

[/quote]

By identifying yourself as a 9/11 truther, you are qualifying that you have little regard for actual science but rather cherrypick information that seems to support your paranoid conspiracy theories. There are numerous threads on this board devoted to truthers so let’s not get our whackjob conspiracies mixed up in this thread. I don’t believe everything that the “gubment” says, but I believe the science and the real science says 9/11 truthers are wrong. If your idea of “do your own research” is to read some partial or irrelevant information from some conspiracy nut’s blog, then you should probably get off of the internet and go find yourself a job with your name on your shirt because this science and learnin’ thing isn’t for you.

My views on GMO are a very scientific “it depends”. There are so many applications to which that term applies, it is intellectually dishonest to throw everything under one label and call it bad. Running around thinking the sky is falling because food is GMO is about as general and idiotic as running around thinking that the sky is falling because your food is “processed” or “unorganic”.[/quote]

So explain what happened to building 7[/quote]

Why don’t you dig up one of the 10 or so threads on this message board alone where structural engineers and architects (NOT internet asswipes with a 9th grade physics background) have debunked the mythology that you and the “loose change” crowd parade around as fact? This isn’t the place for that argument, but if your grasp of science is so fucking weak that you have to bring out this “ITS A CONSPIRACY!” bullshit, then like I said, this learnin’ thing ain’t for you.

120

[quote]Stronghold wrote:

[quote]staticx wrote:

[quote]Stronghold wrote:

[quote]honkie wrote:

[quote]Mikael LS wrote:
Can you people post the studies supporting your claims? It is considered bad argumentaion to talk about studies without actually referencing them. [/quote]

You’re kidding right? Have you not even read “Seeds of Deception”? There are a ton of studies and references in that book alone.

Then there is “Genetic Roulette” That goes through many of the studies and breaks them down more simply.

There are just too many to put them up here but all it takes is 5 minutes of research to find them. I recommend you get the books and read them.

Here is some more info.

http://www.celsias.com/article/monsanto-submitted-fake-scientific-data-says-forme/

http://foodfreedom.wordpress.com/2010/02/22/health-scandal-of-the-decade-�??�?�¢??-monsanto�??�?�¢??s-gmo-perversion-of-food/

http://corporatecrime.wordpress.com/2009/10/17/monsanto-lies-again-and-again-and-again/

http://www.infowars.com/gmo-scandal-the-long-term-effects-of-genetically-modified-food-on-humans/

http://www.infowars.com/death-of-the-bees-gmo-crops-and-the-decline-of-bee-colonies-in-north-america/

[/quote]

So your sources are 4 amateur websites (wordpress, anyone?), Huffington Post, and TWO links to Alex Jones’ website?

(For those who don’t know who Alex Jones is, he’s the head conspiracy nutjob around the US and thinks the gubment is responsible for 9/11 and for spraying the population with mind control chemicals from airliners.)

Another perspective:

Oh, and for the idiot claiming Alan’s opinion wasn’t valid because he wasn’t an MD, your argument is faulty. There are THOUSANDS of MD’s who completely disagree with the fructose alarmism hypothesis.[/quote]

What are your views on GMO then?

In regards to the 9/11 comment, if you honestly believe the BS that’s been fed to you by mainstream media outlets and the governments lies, I feel sorry for you.

[/quote]

By identifying yourself as a 9/11 truther, you are qualifying that you have little regard for actual science but rather cherrypick information that seems to support your paranoid conspiracy theories. There are numerous threads on this board devoted to truthers so let’s not get our whackjob conspiracies mixed up in this thread. I don’t believe everything that the “gubment” says, but I believe the science and the real science says 9/11 truthers are wrong. If your idea of “do your own research” is to read some partial or irrelevant information from some conspiracy nut’s blog, then you should probably get off of the internet and go find yourself a job with your name on your shirt because this science and learnin’ thing isn’t for you.

My views on GMO are a very scientific “it depends”. There are so many applications to which that term applies, it is intellectually dishonest to throw everything under one label and call it bad. Running around thinking the sky is falling because food is GMO is about as general and idiotic as running around thinking that the sky is falling because your food is “processed” or “unorganic”.[/quote]

And you are a naysayer desperately clamoring for anything to stop the wild runaway popularity and growing credibility of the 9/11 Truth Movement.Watch the video before assuming anything else about me.

Actually I happen to read a lot more than just Alex Jones websites,and you know nothing of my qualifications and background.

Do you have any idea of the science involved in producing genetically engineered products?