/sci/ - Science & Math

>>1082215
really bad

I'd much rather have sugar

not particularly worse than sugar, but tastes worse and is only cheaper because of corruption/greed (lol subsidize corn, super-import tax sugar, wat do for sweetner?!?!?).... so bad but only in the same way any completely artificial and unnecessary detriment to an item is

a flan approaches...

I have that exact same book, exact same translators, exact same edition sitting in front of me open to page 814, chapter 38 of part two of volume three.

having taken chemistry and cell biology etc I will never understand why an almost 50/50 blend of glucose and fructose in a little water gets a bad rap compared to sucrose.

>>1082280

5% of the time its because it tastes bad and is only artificially cheaper to make

95% of the time its because people are fucking retarded

Bad, but better than aspartame.

none of the wonderful flavors of honey with all of the downsides

>>1082280
As far as I understand (warning: I am repeating what I heard from an "expert" and am not an expert), it has to do with the differences in how fructose and sucrose/glucose are processed in the liver.

Apparently your body immediately stores fructose as fat.

I read that somewhere.

No source though, it was a few months ago...

Basically anything that tastes good is bad for you

>>1082331

>Implying semen is bad for you

>>1082331
>implying babies are bad for you

why does everybody itt keep saying artificial? it's a corn derivative. How is it more artificial than extracting sugar from sugarcane or beets?

>>1082290
This * 1000.

>>1082352

because corporations mannn

No.

Sugar immediately raises blood glucose levels, and if a soda was sweetend with only sugar, and consumed at the same rate as HFCS sweetened sodas, it'd provoke worse diabetes.

There's rare studies that say it provokes this or that in the liver, but they've never been effectively replicated.

It's one of many occasions where the public is retarded, and scientists don't do anything about it. Aspartame has hundreds of studies, funded by any and all groups that could afford it, that show no effects, yet a few rogue studies say otherwise, and instantly everyone jumps the bandwagon.

It does taste weird, but that's not justification for it's purported effects.

I'm still waiting for neotame sodas to hit shelves. No aftertaste? Check. an order of magnitude greater sweetening effectiveness that aspartame? Check.

>>1082359

The general public is so easily swayed by the media.

Doesn't matter either way to me because sucralose it hot shit

http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/

>>1082331
> Implying HFCS tastes good.

>>1082375
>Sucralose is approximately 600 times as sweet as sucrose (table sugar),[2] twice as sweet as saccharin, and 3.3 times as sweet as aspartame.
holy shit

>>1082375
>sucralose
Sucralosefag here, 95% of the soda I drink is sucralose sweetened.

>>1082401
Neotame is 8000-13000 times as sweet as sugar, and one ounce off ebay can sweeten to roughly the same as 450 lbs of sugar.

>>1082352
A) Corn was NEVER healthy. Not even the original rock hard indian corn.
B) It's not particularly sweet, so you need a LOT of it.
C) It's in goddamn everything, so everything tastes like corn syrup.
D) The glycemic load will fuck you up, while a healthy diet will not.

What science has demonstrated about it, a brief history (these are all literally the results of real experimentation mind you)
>it's bad
>its the same
>it's worse than sucrose in small quantities but the same in larger qualities
>it's exactly the same
>it's processed differently in the liver
>no it isn't

Glorious research, it's always so much fun

>>1082416
so... christians 1, atheists 0?

>>1082415
I eat corn for the fiber, I've been eating corn since it came out to my super market, bout 4 times a week.

I'm fucking fine

>>1082415
>corn was never healthy

hurrimadurr.jpg

Corn will demolish the soil and uses a huge amount of water to create waste. It's slightly toxic and can not be fully digested by humans.
Why do you think every corn growing community vanished after less than 100 years?

Fuck corn. /sci/ needs oatz and squatz.

>>1082438
> Why do you think every corn growing community vanished after less than 100 years?
>>>/x/

>>1082438
>vanished after less than 100 years

Meanwhile, in Mexico...

>>1082435
> Corn as a staple food
Try any oat or grain product instead, dumbass.

>>1082450
You may have noticed that Mexico cuts down huge swaths of rainforest to make new farmland and pastures. Let me know how the old farms are doing.
It's a well known fact that corn devastates farmland, which has to be constantly replenished with fertilizer.

>>1082454
>implying that you have to eat just corn or just grains
Protip: you can, and people have, grown more than one thing in a civilization

>>1082479
Surely it can't be related to shit farming techniques in a shitty country. It must be that devil, corn.

It's sugar.

Comes from corn.

>>1082479
Tobacco is way worse, and inedible. Bu people still seem to be fine growing it

Can we plees have a rage thread?

Science-related stupid things you've heard.

>Scientists have proven that antibiotics don't work against viruses anymore.

>Einstein proved everything's [morally] relative.

>If life came about naturally, we would see new life every time we opened a peanut butter jar. Millions of Americans do this every day, but find nothing. Evolution is impossible.

>>1082502
> I have no fucking clue how plants work
It's okay. Have some soy. You know, something that can actually sustain a culture.

Causes insulin resistance. There's a few articles on Pubmed about it.

>>1082516
Colonial America's westward expansion was pushed forward by dying farmland. Certain cash crops simply stopped being viable.

>>1082531
Enjoy your estrogens.

>>1082438
well I'm looking for some news article of mexico disappearing and not getting much

>>1082566
> Enjoy your estrogens
Pic related.

>>1082588
> butthurt vegan fag who mysteriously hates corn

forgive my sass but...
wasn't your original argument that corn was not healthy
not
that corn is an impractical crop?

>>1082601
lol@mysterious corn hatred

>>1082613
It's burned in cars.
Why would you eat something that goes in a gas tank?

>>1082690
is this a joke?

>>1082702
Hey man, if you wanna drink petrol you may, but i would advise against it

Sorry if this throws the thread OT, but i've always wondered exactly HOW different sweeteners manage to taste hundreds to thousands of times sweeter than sugar.

I mean, both sucrose and sucralose have the same basic molecular shape, and i assume thats why sucralose works so well. But since the tounge functions as a receptor to certain molecular shapes, shouldn't sugar taste tons sweeter since theres more of those shapes to stimulate it? i dont really get it.

>>1082785
It's the same way that peppers taste waaay hotter than room temperature.
Direct neurochemical stimulation.

>>1082785
The different shapes bond strongly or more weakly to the receptor. Some, like sucralose, and then even more with neotame, dramtically cause a reaction in the receptor, although they don't stick around.

It's a weird kind of measurement, but there's 1) effect on the receptor and 2) binding ability.

For something to be sweet, it has to bind to the receptor, and it has to agonize it (make it have the typical result).

Artifical sweeteners are effective at agonizing the receptor, and they dislodge themselves quite nicely when finished/forced out.


So yeah there's a number of different combinations of how something will effect a receptor, on it's own. Then you have stuff like "magic berries" or whatever, that can turn bitter tastes into sweet for half hour or an hour. Fun stuff.

On related notes, LSD is incredibly agonistic at serotonin receptors, some of which we use to see color, and that's why LSD makes us hallucinate colors, though at doses as low as like 20-50 micrograms (millionths of a gram).

Similarly, scientists knew a GABA receptor made memory go bad, and was frequently agonized by alcohol and benzodiazepines. So what did they do? They made an "inverse agonist" which stuck in the receptor, and made it go /reverse/, actually improving learning/memory.

>>1082835
A true /sci/entist.

I think it turns toxic after exposed to temps over 120*

I read somewhere it's maybe the cause of so many honey bees disappearing.

>>1082863

.... that sounds SOOOOO sutpid how it go turn poison from heat?

>>1082835

>They made an "inverse agonist" which stuck in the receptor, and made it go /reverse/, actually improving learning/memory.

what is it called

>>1083617
α5IA
Suritozole

are two. I added them years ago to the wikipedia nootropics page, after HUUUUUUUUUGE reorganization/scientific-ization of the page, as it was retardedly laid out.

i loves me cornsyrup

So the bad press is blown out of proportion

>>1082215
did not liek

>>1085688
When it comes to anything related to food, that's usually a pretty safe assumption. "ZOMG WE'RE GONNA DIE BECAUSE WE EAT THIS" is more likely to pull in viewers/readers/whatever than "You know it's possible that this has some detrimental effects, further testing may be required."