[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/ck/ - Food & Cooking

View post   
File: 17 KB, 275x275, hfcs.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3769237 No.3769237 [Reply] [Original]

Why the fuck is there high fructose corn syrup in everything?

>> No.3769241

because the government wouldn't care you if you got diabetes tomorrow

>> No.3769243

Because you're American and your land of the fat subsidizes the corn industries and limit the import of sugar.I'd have more things to worry about if I lived there, like being shot at the movies or the fact that both McDonald's and Wendy's are calling their food "fresh".

>> No.3769244

>>3769237
because the US government subsidizes corn farming to a ridiculous extent making corn syrup dirt cheap.

>> No.3769245

Because the government pays a shitload to farmers in corn subsidies. Why grow anything else when you can make LODS A MONE growing corn.

>> No.3769248

it's cheap and our country is full of people who'd rather buy a 40-pack of artificially flavored HFCS sweetend pudding than a pack of 4 that costs a little more of a better pudding. We can't control ourselves

>> No.3769246

because subsidies

>> No.3769247

It is subsidized, cheap, and sweet. In its concentrated form it doesn't go bad.

>> No.3769249

troll_thread.jpg

>> No.3769250

Because it makes for amazing textures, it's retardedly cheap and the taste is fantastic.

cons: diabetus

>> No.3769252

>>3769247
Why do Americans care so much about food spoilage? Do they really but that much damn food at a time

>> No.3769253

>>3769249
>Doesn't know what a troll is

>>>/mlp/

>> No.3769256

>>3769250
>taste is fantastic

I didn't think so much when I went to the states and tried some of your shit

>> No.3769257

>>3769253
Please, I was trolling USENET back when you were prolly still in your nappies.

>> No.3769261
File: 81 KB, 312x312, exploding milkman.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3769261

Because you wanted to post a thoughtless minimum-effort troll thread where everyone will say amerifat a lot that stays on the front page of /ck/ for days

congratulations

>> No.3769263

it is a low cost way of distributing sugar in a commercial product

sugar is in just about every commercial product ultimately because it optimises sales/profit margins per unit of product

>> No.3769270

>>3769257
Then your troll detector shouldn't be broken.

>> No.3769278

HFCS is inexpensive and almost identical to normal table sugar and even closer to actual honey.

Libruals hate it because it is cheap and manufacturers add way, way too much into their processed foods to make their crap taste good.

This is what they blame diabetus and obesity on.

Nothing wrong with HFCS except that it is inexpensive fructose/glucose and it's in too many things in too high of quanitity.

Same with fucking sodium, but nobody wants to rage against the machine with salt.

>> No.3769298

>>3769252
Yes. We were conditioned by Walmart and Sam's Market for decades to buy huge amounts of food because "Buying in Bulk is better value."

>> No.3769299

>>3769252
Instead of going to the market a few times a week to get fresh food, America evolved around suburbs and going to a superstore once every two weeks to fill the entire house. As an American its really disgusting to watch.

>> No.3769302

>>3769278
>Nothing wrong with HFCS
Except it tastes like shit

>> No.3769303

>>3769270
Guess I have nostalgia goggles, too drunk too care...

>> No.3769312
File: 287 KB, 1306x980, Suburbia_by_David_Shankbone.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3769312

>>3769299
When I moved to the city and lived on my own I learned how badass shopping is when you're not carrying a thousand bags at once. And I can carry them on the bus.

I don't think saving a few dollars a month or a year by buying shitty food is worth it. People even complained when Netflix raised their price a tad bit, as if these fags are living dollar by dollar and can barely afford $8 a month or whatever it is not (like I honestly would know the exact figure this being that it's practically pocket change)

>> No.3769325

>>3769312
Netflix doubled the cost of service without ever changing anything in the service, and the streaming was already shit to begin with. THIS is why people were pissed. It would be the same if their weekly bag of chips went from being $2.50 to $4 a bag without a single change in bag size/chip amount. You haven't a single clue what you're going on about.

>> No.3769327

>>3769299
>>3769298

we have that problem in britain too. austerity cuisine. in fact sales of fresh produce have gone wayyyyy down over the course of the latest recession.

>> No.3769331

>>3769325
Companies raise their prices for various things, I doubt Netflix is doing it over greed.

>> No.3769336

Because it inhibits the body's ability to produce the "okay, I'm full now" brain response when eating. This fact has already been proven but I don't think it was really advertised to the general public. Aka our government encourages us to be fat/wasteful by using corn syrup (because it is cheap and easy to make also) to make you eat more.

>> No.3769338

If there's high fructose corn syrup in everything you eat, you suck at grocery shopping. Nothing I buy has HFCS and I live in the shittiest/fattest part of America.

>> No.3769350

>>3769338
You're an autismal fuck if you think I was being literal

Hurr the specialty stores I go to have good food thus you're wrong OP

>> No.3769373

>>3769350
Specialty stores? Your average grocery store has plenty of food without HFCS. All you have to do is walk around the aisles instead of through them. Even in dumbfuck redneckland.

>> No.3769380

>>3769302
Except it tastes the fucking same.

Table sugar is 50% fructose, 50% glucose.

HFCS is 55% fructose, 45% glucose. Hence 'high fructose'.

Yeah big fucking difference, all that nasty fructose in your food. More like the planetary esoteric balance is upset with that extra fructose is disrupting your tastebud's feng shui, amirite?

>> No.3769381

>>3769380
>syrup tastes the same as sugar

>> No.3769395

>>3769381
are you disagreeing with that?

>> No.3769407

>>3769380
Watch out, we got a chemist here.

>> No.3769443

>>3769380
No... Table sugar is sucrose...

>> No.3769462

Because subsidies.

>> No.3769480

>>3769381
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrup#Syrups_for_beverages

>A basic sugar-and-water syrup used to make drinks at bars. Simple syrup is made by stirring granulated sugar into hot water in a saucepan until the sugar is dissolved and then cooling the solution. Generally, the ratio of sugar to water can range anywhere from 1:1 to 2:1. Simple syrup can be used as a sweetener. However, since it gels readily when pectin is added, its primary culinary use is as a base for fruit sauces, toppings and preserves.

>> No.3769550

>>3769252
Mainly because people here don't want to go to the grocery store every day. Putting 10-14 hours a day into your job and another 8 into sleep doesn't really leave you time for shopping or even cooking most of the time. Hell, I haven't had a home-cooked meal in over 3 months because I lack the time and patience to learn to cook.

>> No.3769625

>>3769550
Difficult, but it can be done. I've been working 50 hour weeks this month without eating junk food. Fruit, cheese, nuts, and salads with olive oil are all easy for busy people. Buy a bunch of fruit, chop it up, and keep it in the refrigerator all week. Plenty of bananas of course. Steam baskets are great as well, especially for cooking broccoli and sweet potatoes quickly. For protein, eggs don't take too long to prepare. You don't need to go to the grocery store every day. I go once during the weekend and then either Wednesday or Thursday. Twice a week works fine if you plan ahead.

>> No.3769632

>>3769625
I cut up apples and put them in a bag with lemon or lime juice and hull strawberries and put them in a bag

what are other good fruits or veggies to store cut up and bagged?

it seems like restaurants store cut up celerey and carrots in tubs of water but I bet that would get nasty after a cou8ple days

>> No.3769651

>>3769632
Melons. I don't bother with raw vegetables much, usually I'll just buy a bag of salad that already has some variety.

>> No.3769653

>>3769625
this is sobering

>> No.3770594

>>3769237
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1xmGK8PEJw
>see video

>> No.3770603

Because the US government pays farmers to farm corn instead of, say, cane sugar or stevia.

>> No.3770606

Cheap motherfuckers shitting up your food by cutting corners, as always.

>> No.3770609

>>3769278

HFCS tastes different from cane sugar, imo. I can also tell the difference between agave and cane.

It's nowhere near identical to sugar, any more than starch or cellulose is. The "sweesurprise" people unwittingly admit this on their own fucking website.

>> No.3770618

How the fuck is HFCS artificial? Processed, sure, but artificial? Enzymes are natural. Corn is natural. Water is natural. It's a simple fucking syrup, you monkeys.

>> No.3770620

Perhaps to merchandise this book wisely I ought to give away not only the previously mentioned fried egg, but as an added attraction (at no extra charge) I should give away with each and every book, a hundred pounds of seed corn. Not ninety pounds, mark you, not eighty pounds, but one hundred pounds. Where am I going to get the corn? I have already anticipated your question. I'm going to get it from the farmer. For years the American public has been getting it in the neck from the farmer and, in return, all we have received is a large bill for farm relief and rigid price supports.

The reason the farmer gets away with so much is that when a city dweller thinks of the farmer he visualizes a tall, stringy yokel, with hayseed in his few teeth, subsisting on turnip greens, skimmed milk and hog jowels and living in a ramshackle dump with his mule fifty miles from nowhere. But what's the good of my trying to describe it? Erskine Caldwell wrapped it up neatly in God's Little Acre.

>> No.3770621

>>3770618

everything is natural by your criteria.

point is, HFCS has only been in use for a small amount of time, as opposed to things like sugar, milk, and wheat. It's also somewhat linked with rising diabetes rates and such.

it's also not chemically identical to sugar in the least. Anyone telling you that is flat out lying, or knows less about chemistry than a 4th grader.

>> No.3770622
File: 57 KB, 650x422, 1325972256431.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3770622

>>3770618
> I don't understand what words in the dictionary mean and I refuse to look them up

No one cares, bro. No one will help you.

>> No.3770623

>>3770620
This kind of farmer may have existed years ago, but today the farmer is the best protected citizen in the entire economy. As a city-dweller, I can assure that there is no love lost between the urbanite and the farmer (unless the farmer has a daughter).

Each year the government is faced with the same problem - how to dispose of the corn surplus. They've tried everything: storing in on battleships, dumping it in silos (with the hope that the rats and the squirrels will make away with some of it); they've even tried giving it away for free to moonshiners. But the White Mule business ain't what it used to be. The moonshiners now want potatoes because the American public has switched to vodka. Well, the government's problem can be solved very easily. Just give me the corn my book so sorely needs.

>> No.3770625

>>3770623
The government's eternal solicitude for the rustic has got the rest of the country gagging. Why don't they do something for the book publisher and the author? Why don't they do away with literary critics who, in three fine sentences, can cripple the sales of any book? Did you ever hear of a farm critic coming out and saying, " Farm Snodgrass' corn crop is not up to his last year's crop." Or, "Another year's crop like this one, and he'll be back digging sewers for the county asylum,"

The book publishers of America, you'll notice, have no lobby in Washington looking after their interests. They have a surplus of books they would like to plow under, but they haven't got enough money to buy the hole to bury them in.

>> No.3770627

>>3770625

> Stately, plump Buck Mulligan came from the stairhead, bearing a bowl of lather on which a mirror and a razor lay crossed. A yellow dressinggown, ungirdled, was sustained gently behind him on the mild morning air. He held the bowl aloft and intoned:

> --_Introibo ad altare Dei_.

> Halted, he peered down the dark winding stairs and called out coarsely:

> --Come up, Kinch! Come up, you fearful jesuit!

> Solemnly he came forward and mounted the round gunrest. He faced about and blessed gravely thrice the tower, the surrounding land and the awaking mountains. Then, catching sight of Stephen Dedalus, he bent towards him and made rapid crosses in the air, gurgling in his throat and shaking his head. Stephen Dedalus, displeased and sleepy, leaned his arms on the top of the staircase and looked coldly at the shaking gurgling face that blessed him, equine in its length, and at the light untonsured hair, grained and hued like pale oak.

That was all I saw in this post.

>> No.3770628

slightly relevant, this year's corn crop will be around 1/3 or so of what it usually is

hopefully HFCS prices will rise significantly.

>> No.3770629

>>3770627
haha what?

>> No.3770640

>>3770628
Don't bet on it. We export a fuckton of corn every year.

The only people suffering will be poor countries who rely on our food.

>> No.3770644

>>3770621
>everything is natural by your criteria.

No, I'm fairly certain corn is natural by everyone's criteria.

>point is, HFCS has only been in use for a small amount of time, as opposed to things like sugar, milk, and wheat

How does it effect the natural vs. unnatural argument, again? I didn't know products had a fucking egg timer that went off when it was time to define them as "natural".

>It's also somewhat linked with rising diabetes rates and such.

You mean like sugar itself is? inb4 hurr eating fucktons of sugar is 100% healthy for youz cause naetural

>it's also not chemically identical to sugar in the least. Anyone telling you that is flat out lying, or knows less about chemistry than a 4th grader.

[citation needed]

>>3770622
lol u mad XDDDDDDDD

>> No.3770646

>>3770628
The most important result of the corn crop going to shit is that livestock prices are gonna go up because corn is heavily relied on for feed. The USDA came out with a figure a couple weeks ago and predicts that the price of beef is gonna go up 4-5% everywhere, compared to a regular, annual inflation of 2.5% for all foodstuffs.

>> No.3770649

>It's also somewhat linked with rising diabetes rates and such.
Overeating in general is linked to diabetes risk.
You can eat a lot of fruit and put yourself at high risk for diabetes because of the natural sugars in fruit.
Eat a shit ton of fruit and your body will churn out insulin to deal with it. Keep it up and your body may stop responding properly, not reacting to the insulin.
Boom, diabetes by fruit consumption.

Any time you eat, your body kicks out some insulin. Overeat for every meal and you put yourself at risk for insulin intolerance, which will land you in diabetes land.
Hell, get too damn old and you can get diabetes because your body just isn't processing like it used to.
As well, there are several types of diabetes, and only one is linked to being obese, overeating and being sedentary (type 2).

Sugar/HFCS/candy/soda does not cause diabetes, only puts you at risk when you consume a fuck ton of it. 'At risk' is not the same as 'will get'.
Smoking cigarettes puts you at risk for lung cancer, but as many know, not every smoker gets cancer.

tl;dr, stop spreading shitty info about diabetes.

>> No.3770677

Only in Murika. LOL.

>> No.3770680

>>3770649
>You can eat a lot of fruit and put yourself at high risk for diabetes because of the natural sugars in fruit.

It would have to be an ungodly amount of fruit, seeing how natural sugars are complex and therefore they take more time to be broken down by enzymes, triggering a much lower insulin response than simple sugars.

>> No.3770681

>>3770644
neither refined sugar nor high fructose corn syrup are natural you gigantic mongoloid.

>> No.3770688

>>3770680
Thought I would mention that... um... natural sugars are... you know... the exact opposite of complex? They're called
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_sugars
for a reason.
Simple sugars are the ones in fruits.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligosaccharides
which are still fairly simple, mind you, are also found in fruits.
Corn syrup is made by breaking down the starch (which itself is a complex carbohyrdate) of corn into oligosaccharides, which are found naturally in fruits and vegetables, anyway.
Next, it is fermented to break down further; what is left is glucose.
Finally, the glucose is bonded to fructose in about a 50%:40% ratio glucose:fructose, with the remaining 10% being various other types of sugars.
Corn syrup is the complex sugar, not fruit sugar, you clod.

>> No.3770689

>>3770688
>Corn syrup is the complex sugar,

LOL, American education.

>> No.3770701

>>3770680
that's fucking wrong you dumb nignog. a sugar is a sugar is a sugar

what fruit has going for it though, that your soda pop doesnt, is fiber. your gut has to break down the fibrous, non-digestible material to get to the sugars.

>> No.3770708

>>3770701
not to mention vitamins and antioxidents

>> No.3770712

Who cares? It's not worse for you than other sugar anyway.

>> No.3770716

>>3770712
they don't put cane sugar in sandwich bread though. sandwich bread ffs.

>> No.3770718

>>3770716
A little bit of sugar is standard in many if not most types of bread. The amount varies, sometimes it's just a little to help the yeast, but it's not an abnormal ingredient.

>> No.3770720

>>3770718
>go to grocery store
>try to find bread without HFCS in it
>you can't

>> No.3770724

>>3770720
The double fiber bread I buy doesn't have any, but yeah for the most part that's true. I hate living in America.

>> No.3770850

>>3770720
>HFCS in bread
Okay America, now THAT is fucking pathetic.

>> No.3770881

>living in the EU territory
>I have no idea what you're talking about or why it's so controversial

Last time I checked sugar was still prevalent over here.

>> No.3770882

>>3770720
i found stuff with regular corn syrup, does that count?

>> No.3771326

>>3770644

this post is so full of retarded fatness that it has to be trolling

regardless, here's a source for what I said, you retarded piece of lazy trash.

http://www.sparkpeople.com/resource/nutrition_articles.asp?id=486

this used to be on sweetsurprise.com itself a few months ago, but I guess they wised up it and removed it, since it rather explicitly stated that HFCS is different from sugar.

inb4 HURR DURP UNRELIABLE SOURCE, you can find this piece of information anywhere on the net

>> No.3771328

>>3771326

for anyone who's too dense to understand, it basically means that HFCS:sucrose as glucose:starch

are glucose and starch the same thing? They are, according to HFCS supporters.

>> No.3771333

>>3769237
There isn't.
Suck to be american.

Does it actually taste any different?
Does it give different mouthfeel or something?

>> No.3771340

>>3771333

checmically different, can sometimes taste the difference

>> No.3771346

>>3769244

is the correct answer,

HFCS isn't any worse for you than pure cane sugar, though.

>> No.3771350

>>3771346

transfatty acids aren't any worse for you than omega 3 fatty acids.

>> No.3771406

>>3771350

HFCS doesn't contain fat

>> No.3771444

>>3771406

transfats don't contain sugar

>> No.3771465

>>3771350
Sorry bad argument.

Because your body reacts to Transfatty acids and omega 3 fatty acids in entirely different ways. The human body cannot metabolize a transfat, but the n-3 fatty acids are vital for normal metabolism. It has been shown though that your body cant tell the god damn difference between HFCS and pure cane sugar.

Nice try at strawman comparison though

>> No.3771489

>>3771465

>HFCS and sucrose are chemically different

>the body will metabolize them the same way

nice retard argument, though

>> No.3771518
File: 26 KB, 1004x690, lal.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3771518

>> No.3771620

>>3771518
>>3771489
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sucrose#Metabolism_of_sucrose

"In humans and other mammals, sucrose is broken down into its constituent monosaccharides, glucose and fructose, by sucrase or isomaltase glycoside hydrolases, which are located in the membrane of the microvilli lining the duodenum.[9][10] The resulting glucose and fructose molecules are then rapidly absorbed into the bloodstream"

unless wikipedia is wrong, too. which is possible but unlikely on a hard science page.

>> No.3771648

>>3771620

starch is also broken down into glucose by the body


therefore glucose syrup and rice are the same thing

>> No.3771686

Because that's the only way to fit enough sugar in stuff, because at room temperature you can only desolve so much sugar into water

>> No.3771688

>>3771648
However converting starch to sugar takes energy so it Burns part if itself just in the process

>> No.3771693

Who cares. You shouldn't be buying junkfood with loads of either. HFCS does have legitimate applications in cooking, but not nearly as many as sugar. Of course it's over-used, but so is sugar.

>> No.3771719

>>3771688

>breaking bonds in starch takes energy
>breaking bonds in sucrose doesn't, because I said so

>> No.3771989

>>3770850
i don't understand why using a sugar alternative is something to be frowned upon?

>> No.3772024

>>3771346
What about the mycotoxins and mercury associated with HFCS?

>> No.3772034

>>3772024
You mean bullshit claims made by conspiracy theorists using shitty Blogspot pages?

>> No.3772040

>>3771326
>I don't have an argument so I'll just insult you instead. lol mudkipz xD

>Also here's a source by some health food site "proving" my claim AND IF YOU DISAGREE WITH MY SHITTY SOURCE THAN UR JUST DUMB LOL

k

>> No.3772076

>>3772040

>I don't know what HFCS is
>I'll just pretend I do bcoz its 4chen :DDD xDD :3

>> No.3772078
File: 71 KB, 600x518, 1312198352937.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3772078

>>3772076
>I still have no counter argument so I'm just going to fling more insults than a monkey flings its shit

>> No.3772109
File: 2.72 MB, 640x480, xtreme murrican.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3772109

>>3772078

>has no counterargument
>expects one in return

xDDDD

look at this, you piece of gorilla refuse.

http://www.sweetsurprise.com/what-is-hfcs

the organization that pushes HFCS tells you its fructose to glucose ratio. Notice how it isn't 50:50. I'll break this down for apes like you, what it means is that the glucose and fructose ARE NOT bonded to one another.

a few months back, they had a factoid saying that HFCS was blended, unbonded glucose and fructose, with some other saccharides blended in. they wised up to the fact that that information was too revealing, and removed it.

You now know what HFCS actually is. retarded nigger.

>> No.3772120

>>3772034
Corn is a huge source of mycotoyxins, some of which are extremely heat stable and very carcinogenic or nephrotoxins.

Do you really think it is amazing that the ubiquity of HFCS in processed foods would lead to incidences of higher mycotoxin ingestion?

(I work in a mycology lab, I don't have to fall back on conspiracies - or calling people tinfoil hats when I don't understand what they are talking about)

>> No.3772126

>>3772120
>I work in a mycology lab

no you don't.

>> No.3772137

>>3772109
>sweetsurprise.net

Stop bullshitting me with these shitty sites and give me an actual study on the health effects of HFCS, already.

>the organization that pushes HFCS tells you its fructose to glucose ratio. Notice how it isn't 50:50. I'll break this down for apes like you, what it means is that the glucose and fructose ARE NOT bonded to one another.

>a few months back, they had a factoid saying that HFCS was blended, unbonded glucose and fructose, with some other saccharides blended in. they wised up to the fact that that information was too revealing, and removed it.

By the way, this is what's called a red herring. Post a double-blind, peer reviewed study that proves HFCS is worse than regular table sugar.

I'm waiting.

Do it.

>> No.3772138

>>3772126
Why not? You don't think there are graduate students/professionals on 4chan?

Ask away.

>> No.3772142

>>3772138
post your laboratory ID card with the sensitive info blurred out, timestamped.

inb4 choke

>> No.3772143

>>3772126

not that guy, but

HFCS =/= sugar people:

>provides evidence for different metabolism by the body
>is obviously different from sugar by definition

HFCS is the same as sugar:

>herp no evidence
>herp therefore it's the same thing as sugar
>herp sugar is sugar is sugar is sugar


>>3772137

>sweetsurprise.net
>bullshit
>the very fucking organization that campaigns for HFCS consumption, citing that it has no additional harmful effects from sugar, and has been paying for those commercials on TV for the last 7 years
>bullshit

okay, you trolled me. I'm done with you now.

>> No.3772144

>>3772137
Oh, the guy who always says "post a double-blind, peer-reviewed study".

I remember you said that about a sociological issue that literally made no sense; you were implying a study where the researchers couldn't know what question they were asking.

>> No.3772149

>>3772143
>>the very fucking organization that campaigns for HFCS consumption, citing that it has no additional harmful effects from sugar, and has been paying for those commercials on TV for the last 7 years

Yes, I'm saying a shitty corporate site is bullshit. What, are you surprised?

>HUR U TROL ME

Yeah, I'm done. Enjoy your conspiracy theories.

>>3772144
Oh, the guy who assumes people demanding actual evidence for what Johnny Retard said on 4chan are all the exact same person.

Go back to /pol/

>> No.3772151

>>3772142
Yes, because I want people to be able to contact my supervisor or spam me. There aren't that many mycology labs in the country, nice try bro.

If you have mycology-related questions I am sure I could shed some light for you. I have a few specialities, but have general knowledge in various areas (mycorrhizae, phytopathogens, microbial community structure and function, taxonomy/phylogeny/nomenclature, secondary metabolites, air quality, etc.).

>> No.3772158

>>3772151
so what, you don't know how to use photoshop now?

nice try fake-fag.

we got an internet scientist guy on here guys, watch out, he might use words he found on wikipedia against you!

>> No.3772165

>>3772158
How would a white card with my photo, ID number, name, name of employment, etc. blacked out prove anything?

Anyway, I'm not going to play the game of "prove what I do IRL durrrr". You obviously argue from a dogmatic point of view and can't fathom any other arguments that conflict with your beliefs.

>> No.3772168

>>3772165
>dogmatic

asking people for proof behind their bullshit claims is dogma now?

lol okay

by the way i'm the King of Scotland

ask the King of Scotland anything

besides proof of course

if you ask for PROOF you're a dogma spewer lol

>> No.3772173

>>3772168
Can't wait untill you get banned again.

>> No.3772174

>>3772168
I merely mentioned the incidence of mycotoxins in HFCS, something which you can easily read about by searching "HFCS mycotoxin" in Google Scholar. Then you can read, find better keywords, and learn more. If you do not want to do this, you simply do not want to learn.

Working in a lab is not an amazing thing. I am sure there are many graduate students and technicians on 4chan. I'm not sure how you think working in a research lab is fantastic and like being royalty.

>> No.3772171
File: 161 KB, 1043x618, lelz.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3772171

>>3772149

>doesn't understand chemistry
>dismisses those who do as conspiracy nuts

>believes the positive things that corporations tell him about HFCS
>corporations accidentally mentioned something negative about it, must be false

I know I'm just being trolled hard, but I'm still compelled to respond

also, for anyone interested:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070823094819.htm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/26/AR2009012601831.html

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20219526

>> No.3772182

>>3772168

>"HFCS is not the same as sugar"
WELL, I"M GONNA NEED SOME PROOF

OH WAIT, THAT DOESN"T COME FROM A PERFECTLY CARRIED OUT, DOUBLE BLIND, CHI SQUARED, .EDU STUDY, I"M AFRAID IT'S INVALID

>"HFCS is the same as sugar!!!111ELEVEN!!! SUGAR IS SUGAR LELELEL"

>doesn't provide evidence for HFCS being chemically equivalent to sugar

>doesn't provide evidence for it being metabolized the same way

>doesn't provide evidence for it not being unhealthier than sucrose

>doesn't provide any evidence at all, expects everyone else to

>> No.3772190

>>3772171
The first part of your post is one big strawman and the second part is shit I didn't ask for (basically another strawman).

Let's go back to my original words, shall we? Seeing as how you can't read.

>>3772137
>Post a double-blind, peer reviewed study that proves HFCS is worse than regular table sugar.

>proves HFCS is worse than regular table sugar
>HFCS is worse
>worse

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15113714

www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=2963518

Do you honestly think anyone in this thread is arguing that any sugar is 100% healthy to eat handfuls of?

>> No.3772195

wow, are murrifags this retarded? That they actually believe the shit their media forces down their throats?

>> No.3772202

>>3772174
>hurr prove my bullshit claims for me

nah

>>3772173
lol k

>> No.3772199

>>3772182
But dude, the burden of proof is always in the hands of the guy that is disagreeing with him.

If he actually cared about the stuff he argues about he would read about it in his spare time. Instead, he chooses an argument based on emotion and refuses to go any further than that.

It is obvious he lacks any formal training relating to scientific methodology, critical thinking, etc.

>> No.3772205

>>3772182
Holy shit, it's like watching a waterfall of constant logical fallacies and insults.

All I asked for in this thread was for one simple thing: Some actual proof that HFCS is worse than sugar.

Apparently that's too much for you fags.

Christ, when did /ck/ become /x/?

>> No.3772209

>>3772190
Why do you even post on this board? All you do is argue about organic food, politics and HFCS.

>> No.3772211

>>3772205

no you didn't. You claimed it was chemically identical to sugar, like a flailing, retarded sloth.

You were proven wrong, and now you're changing your question to something else.

>> No.3772219

>>3772211

>no you didn't. You claimed it was chemically identical to sugar, like a flailing, retarded sloth.

No, I didn't. I'm sorry if you think everyone on 4chan is the same person like a /b/tard.

>>3772209
>Why do you even post on this board? All you do is argue about organic food, politics and HFCS.

Same goes for you. I didn't make this thread, and I sure as hell wasn't in it until maybe the latter third.

No, seriously. Do you have ANYTHING ELSE besides HURR SAMEFAG?

>> No.3772220

>>3772190

>posts studies saying that lots of carbohydrate consumption is bad for you

>therefore, HFCS has no effects that are any different from sucrose

not sure if retarded

>> No.3772222

>>3772202
It isn't about proving anything, because there is currently no definitive evidence suggesting HFCS is the exact same as sugar and not unhealthy, nor the opposite. You do not understand that this is how research is conducted.

I'm not trying to prove anything or change your small mind - why would I want to, and what benefit could possibly come from this? It is about a meaningful discussion, yet you keep this obsession with proof.

You find it fantastic someone works in a lab, refuse to read literature on a topic you are apparently hysterical about, etc. You are hopeless and are essentially asking people to compile a literature review so that you won't read it, won't understand it, and won't be able to look critically at.

In short, you believe what is easiest to believe because you are lazy or lack the faculty to research something on your own.

>> No.3772225

>>3772220
What the fuck are you talking about? Both my studies deal with sugar consumption specifically, not general carbohydrate consumption.

What, do you think all carbohydrates are sugars now?

Why can't you just give me something that proves HFCS is worse than sugar?

Is this so hard? If it's a guaranteed conclusion, then you should have something that led you to it, right?

>> No.3772231

>>3772225
>What, do you think all carbohydrates are sugars now?
Pretty much.

>> No.3772232

>>3772219

>no I didn't

see
>>3770644
>>3770644
>>3770644
>>3770644
>>3770644

>I claim HFCS is different from sucrose
>you claim "citation needed"
>I provide citation
>lol, what a bullshit link, it's from a .com website
>I provide citation from the people who ADVOCATE hfcs
>lol, ok, this site is bullshit, how can I trust it even though it's right in line with my beliefs

my turn. provide ANY scientific study that specifically compares HFCS and sugar and reaches the conclusion that they are metabolized and processed virtually identically.

>> No.3772233
File: 61 KB, 400x350, 1316984703500.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3772233

>>3772222
>because there is currently no definitive evidence suggesting HFCS is the exact same as sugar and not unhealthy, nor the opposite

the many, many studies that claim exactly that isn't enough for you?

it's pretty much a consensus by this point

the rest of your post is just insults heaped on insults because i dared to ask you for proof that you aren't just a basement dwelling neckbeard

you might as well just post U MAD over and over again

>> No.3772239

>>3772233
Which heaps of studies?

HFCS is chemically different from cane sugar, contains various contaminants that are different from those found in cane sugar, and has various socio-economic impacts that differ from cane sugar.

If you think a decade of research is enough to fully elucidate this question, you don't understand the pace and direction of research programs.

>> No.3772237

>>3772232
I didn't make that post. You seriously think there can't be two people on 4chan that argue somewhat similar positions? Shit, that post was a day ago. I wasn't even on here a day ago.

>> No.3772240

>>3772225

>criticizes semantics
>why can't you give me something proving HFCS is worse than sugar

>implying I didn't already


this guy is so hopelessly retarded there's no way I'm not being trolled

>> No.3772243

>>3772239
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=HFCS+and+sugar&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C38

>> No.3772247

>>3772240
Fucking where? You mean the study you posted that claimed it correlates with DIABEETUS just like regular sugar does?

>> No.3772249

>>3772233
>>3772222

>there's no evidence claiming that hfcs is different from sugar

but there is, you retards. hfcs is hfcs. sucrose is sucrose. that's the fucking definition.

sugar has bonds between the glucose and fructose.
HFCS does not.

additionally, HFCS has other saccharides mixed in, in smaller amounts.

>> No.3772252

>>3772233
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0091305710000614

http://www.springerlink.com/content/x916738m64212141/

http://www.ajcn.org/content/76/5/911.short

http://ajprenal.physiology.org/content/290/3/F625.short

>> No.3772253

>>3772249
we're talking about health effects, silly

>> No.3772255

>>3772252

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15113714

www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=2963518

>> No.3772256

>>3772247

see

>>3772171


alternatively, google anything about "HFCS" and "reactive carbonyls".

if your reading level isn't high enough to comprehend such studies, it's not really my problem, and you're not qualified to hold an opinion on this matter.

I'm out of this thread

>> No.3772261

>>3772243
Second article from your Google Scholar search:

>Consumption of high-fructose corn syrup in beverages may play a role in the epidemic of obesity

>> No.3772264

>>3772253

well, then, the evidence is on you.

since these two substances ARE different, it's reasonable to assume that they BEHAVE differently.

it's up to you to prove that they behave the same way, since that's the less likely possibility.

>> No.3772265

So a billion posts in and I still haven't seen shit that proves HFCS is worse than sugar in regards to negative health effects.

Just a fuckton of strawmen that apparently seem to think I ever said HFCS was 100% harmless.

You people should for Micheal Moore.

>> No.3772268

>>3772264
>it's up to you to prove that they behave the same way, since that's the less likely possibility.

no it fucking isn't

that's not how debate works. the person who makes the claim in the first place has to prove it, regardless of what it is

i'm out

>> No.3772272

>>3772255
I posted articles showing impacts of HFCS consumption on health and you replied with unrelated studies?

lol just like I thought, you are dogmatic and can't read even an abstract, let alone the entire article (and therefore be able to critique the methodology and conclusions).

Then again, as someone who works in a lab I have access to virtually any journal article, while you mine abstract titles that jive with your belief and think that equals researching a topic.

>> No.3772270

>>3772265

>still haven't seen studies proving HFCS is any worse then sugar

my condolences, it sucks to be blind/illiterate.

>> No.3772274

>>3772270
>my condolences, it sucks to be blind/illiterate.

Yeah, it must be hard for you to use a computer when you can't see shit that's right in front of you.

Not even gonna bother reposting, either, since you'll just ignore it anyway.

Didn't you leave the thread?

>> No.3772276

>>3772272

dude, I'm pretty sure he's a troll. just leave this thread to die.

>> No.3772277

>>3772265

See:
>>3772252

You are terrible at debating.

>> No.3772281

>>3772276
Yeah, you are right. I see this guy pop up defending the status quo in all threads - I'd like to think he is a troll, but I think he is just a moron.

/done.

>> No.3772280

>>3772274
>>3772274

>there's no way multiple people have opinions contrary to mine

>> No.3772287

I'm out. You people are just conspiracy sheeple who think everyone is out to get you. You can't post triple-blind pear-review studies and you can't post valid ID cards.

Fuck you guys, enjoy your HFCS boycott.

>> No.3772291

>>3771648
key word is "rapidly"

and yes, some starches are more or less glucose, e.g. those in potatoes. precisely for the same reason that sucrose is more or less the same as HFCS.

>> No.3772286

>>3772272
>>3772276
>>3772277
Tell me how in the unholy fuck does proving HFCS cause diabetes make it worse than sugar... which causes diabetes with effectively the exact same frequency

How?

Fucking how?

Fucker with the "lab" shit, stop flaunting your dick, no one cares.

Fucker screaming troll, go back to >>>/b/.

Last fucker, see above.

Fuck it, I'm out. You people should work for Micheal Moore.

>> No.3772292

>>3772277
Find another board already dude. Cunts like you should be given a perma trip or ID by mods so we can see how many threads you actually derail on a daily basis.

Although it's not hard to pick out you posts

>> No.3772293

>>3772286
You didn't look at the articles I posted, namely the first one.

>> No.3772297

>>3772281

how do you know it's the same guy?

>>3772287

enjoy your reactive dicarbonyls and consequent higher risk for diabetes

>> No.3772302

>>3772292
>derail

How do you derail a thread on HFCS discussion by discussing HFCS?

>> No.3772303

>>3772297
He says the same things and uses the same mannerisms.

>> No.3772304

>>3772303
There's a billion other people that do that, too. Humans aren't as unique as you like to believe.

>> No.3772307

>>3772292
How did I derail? Look at one of the articles I pointed out for you to pretend to read and understand:

>High-fructose corn syrup causes characteristics of obesity in rats: Increased body weight, body fat and triglyceride levels

I should be banned because I posted a peer-review study that contradicts your emotional-based argument? Wow, how telling.

>> No.3772310

>>3772307
So it causes the exact same effects that sugar has already long been proven to cause, too

no wai

>> No.3772311

>>3772304
We know it's you.

>> No.3772314

>>3772303

ok, thanks, I'm somewhat new here

stop responding

>> No.3772316

>>3772311
>translation: i think it's you because you actually dared to argue against me wah stop having opposing opinions

>> No.3772318

>>3772310
From the article which you couldn't be bothered to read, let alone glance at the abstract in its entirety:

>Rats with 12-h access to HFCS gained significantly more body weight than animals given equal access to 10% sucrose, even though they consumed the same number of total calories, but fewer calories from HFCS than sucrose.

How does it feel to be wrong bro? Your laziness and lack of critical thought are telling.

>> No.3772323

>>3772316
Not putting sage as the e-mail and using only lower case letters doesn't hide your mannerisms dude.

Nice try though... maybe throw in some typos and emoticons to throw us off next time.

>> No.3772326

>>3772318

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2991323/?tool=pmcentrez

>Similarly, in a 24 hour study Stanhope 2008 [20] and Melanson [21] did not find substantially different effects between meals with either sucrose or HFCS on 24 hour plasma glucose, insulin, leptin and ghrelin levels. Even TG profiles were found to be similar between the two tests. These responses were found to be intermediate between the lower responses after the pure fructose syrup consumption and the higher responses after glucose solution ingestion. There was no difference in food intake during a meal consumed 50 min later or in the components of food intake regulatory mechanisms.

you mad

>> No.3772328
File: 63 KB, 604x403, katya.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3772328

>>3772318

>mfw when he gets told and stops responding

>mfw when he will probably respond again, and ignore your factual response

>mfw when we got royally trolled

>> No.3772330

>>3772323
you're the same cunt that posts all the dairy trolls, aren't you?

>> No.3772335

>>3772326
>the overall evidence for a positive correlation between consumption of soft drinks and overweight is limited. Causal inferences cannot be made from cross-sectional study designs with values subjected to measurement error. The interventional acute studies (24 hours) found that fructose is thought to be associated with insufficient secretion of insulin and leptin and suppression of ghrelin when compared with pure glucose. Such a difference, however, could not be demonstrated when HFCS compared with sucrose, the commonly consumed sweetener.

you titanically mad

>> No.3772345

>>3772335
I'm actually reading the article, instead of picking out points that agree with me.

I have also noticed several articles cited in your literature review were conducted by members of the Burdock Group.

You should also know a literature review is an author collecting data, in this case 150+ papers, and summarizing them according to their understanding and, yes, bias.

So no, your literature review, which I have not finished reading, does not negate the experimental research article I posted.

Again, learn2science.

>> No.3772349

>>3772345
tl;dr it's biased cause i said so

fine sciencedaily is a biased journal, then.

important points: claiming you work at a lab and saying SCIENCE SCIENCE SCIENCE over and over again doesn't make you either

>> No.3772365

Just finished reading through this thread. This is some of the worst shit on /ck/ in a long time. Everyone shit spewing at each other, claiming they're more "scientific" than the other side, claiming that their one study is better than the other guy's one study.

I don't even give a fuck about HFCS, I know what I like and I like what I know, but you fuckers need to chill out. Be calm. This ain't /v/, there's no need to call each other autists every other post.

>> No.3772436
File: 1.58 MB, 350x272, 1339294405455.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3772436

Here's an article from a peer-reviewed journal linking the autism epidemic in the US to HFCS consumption.

http://www.clinicalepigeneticsjournal.com/content/4/1/6

Focusing just on the HFCS part of the article, the way it's manufactured contributes to the small amount of mercury contamination, which contributes to autism. In addition, HFCS consumption apparently depletes microminerals like magnesium, calcium, and phosphorous. Of which the average American diet is already low on.

I'm probably going to hell for giggling about this but my friend has an autistic step-child who refuses to eat anything but this particular brand of nasty frozen pizza. The kid must know he requires more vespene gas to sustain optimal autism levels.

>> No.3772440

>>3772436
Why'd you bump this shit thread?

>> No.3772443

It's just sugar you whiny fat shits quit the tinfoil hat routine dumb fucks.

Cane juice, beet juice, corn juice...what's the big deal?

>> No.3772481

>>3770720
>go to grocery store
>try to find bread without HFCS in it
>you can't

Just grabbed the bread I always buy from my kitchen
Franz San Juan Island Nine Grain Bread Ingredients: Enriched Unbleached Wheat Flour (Wheat Flour, Malted Barley Flour, Niacin, Reduced Iron, Thiamin Mononitrate, Riboflavin and Folic Acid), Water, Granola Mix (Wheat, Oats, Triticale, Barley, Amaranth, Rye, Wheat Germ, Flax Seeds, Sunflower Seeds, Cornmeal), Yeast, Sugar, Vital Wheat Gluten, Brown Sugar, Contains 2% or less of the following: Vegetable Oil (Canola and/or Soy), Raisin Paste, Sunflower Seeds, Cultured Wheat Flower, Distilled Vinegar, Guar Gum, Salt, Dough Conditioner (ascorbic acid), Calcium Sulfate, Nonfat Dry Milk, Soy Flour.

>> No.3773739

>>3770720
Way to ask this to /ck/ who buys the most obscure bands at the most unknown and local stores

>> No.3773742

That's why I stick with my organic cane sugar. Soda w/o HFCS is so much better

>> No.3773751

>>Why the fuck is there high fructose corn syrup in everything?

Back in 1977 the US government imposed a huge tariff (import tax) on sugar, and gave subsidies to corn farmers. Almost overnight the major food and drink producers in the USA switched to HFCS instead of using normal sugar, since sugar suddenly skyrocketed in price.

Government interference via taxes is the reason why there is so much HFCS in our food.