/sci/ - Science & Math

I honestly don't like the taste.

Besides, who's the government to force people to drink one type of sugar over the other? Let people choose, dammit.

a) nothing

b) it has a bad aftertaste

>corn syrup
Nothing at all. Sugar is sugar.

>aspertame
Some studies suggest that artificial sweeteners can stimulate hunger, leading to greater calorie consumption and weight gain than if you just drank non-diet soda.

Artificial sugars (and many natural ones) are bad for your health. HFCS and the dense, fast releasing carbohydrates found in soda/low quality meat/hamburger buns/cheeses and fries are the primary reason for obesity in the United States and abroad.

If you are not fat, literally nothing.

If you are fat, they make you fatter.

>>3464080
So basically, if you're fat, you're fucked?

>>3464085
yes

also, skinnyfat is thrown about on internet messageboards but no such actual like, 'thing' exists. it is basically just a skinny-ish (but not dangerously skinny) person with no muscles. there's no real health problems with "skinnyfat"

>>3464040
HFCS is cheap, and therefor easy to put in food.

Because it's cheap, it gets into our food in high ammounts.

Because it's in our food in high ammounts, people like it and eat it.

Because people eat it, they get fat.

Because they get fat, they get heart attacks.

Require companies to use sucrose, they'll put less of it in food because of the cost, people won't get as fat, they'll not have as many heart attacks. Fuck HFCS, use sucrose instead.

>>3464095
Fucking self control, how does it work?

But seriously, if you notice yourself becoming fat and can't bring yourself to reduce your food/soda intake, dying of a heart attack is just basic natural selection at work.

>>3464095

>>Require companies to use sucrose

Stop right there, captain communism.

>>3464040

Fructose is bad for you because the liver synthesizes it into triglycerides (the "bad" cholesterol) but the "high" in HFCS is actually typically 42% or 68% for most applications as far as food goes as compared to the 50%of sucrose (table sugar) so as long as you aren't cramming the stuff down your throat every meal you ought to be okay. Eating grains and bread are almost as bad as HFCS, you really ought to be eating some greens, some meat, and fruits if you need a sugar kick.

>>3464108
Actually, what they're doing now with HFCS is closer to communism nowadays.

>>3464090
skinnyfat applies to people who have low weight but high bodyfat (high relative to their weight). its very real but i dont think they are any other health risks besides the ones from poor diet and little exercise that most skinnyfat people have.

>>3464095
HFCS is only cheap because corn is subsidized. Its actually not that easy to make. If you removed corn subsidies you wouldnt have to make people use sucrose.

>>3464040

Fructose is preferentially shunted into triglyceride synthesis. Fructose in large amounts is considered "bad" for you.

The most common variety of HFCS is 55% fructose, 45% glucose, whereas sucrose is 50/50. HOWEVER, fructose is sweeter than sucrose, so less HFCS is required for the same perceived sweetness. In the end, total fructose content is a wash.

tl;dr: TOO MUCH SUGAR IS BAD FOR YOU

>>3464108

"personal freedom" is why everyone's fat already

maybe it's time to try something else

>>3464090
>>3464150
Doesn't realize being fat is only a part of it.

You don't have to be fat to have your arteries clogged.

Skinnyfat people are just as bad off as fat people.
The only difference is that they have a higher metabolism to work through all that fat.

I used to be skinnyfat until one day in high school a wise person told me that even though i don't get fat i can still die the same way eating shitty food.

Don't give excuses to all the skinnyfat fags on here.

>>3464165
>less HFCS is required for the same perceived sweetness

yeah but it's cheap and advantageous to use in manufactured foods (longer shelf life due to hygroscopy), so it's used in large amounts

>>3464040
Theres nothing "wrong" with HFCS, companies just use it like crack and inject that shit into all processed food to get customers addicted to it.
This is possible thanks to corn subsidies, which create huge ammounts of excess corn and artifically lower the cost of HFCS.

Basically Americans are subsidizing companies to inject HFCS into everything, which results in addiction, then fat, then diabeetus, then death.

>>3464195
Who gives a fuck?

Let 'em all die if they want. We'll be better off if all these fat fucks eat themselves to death.

aspartame give me headaches

>>3464165
question from a non /sci/ regular couldn't some company do like lays with salt did and manufacture a sugar crystal with more surface area so it tastes sweeter and we can use less of it

Every time you see a fat guy you should think to yourself "i payed for all that fat with my tax dollars i'm so very glad i did that!"

If you don't then you should start trying to do something about ending farm subsidies

Couldn't be bothered to read the whole thread because it is so full of misinformation.

Aspartame has been repeatedly linked to cancer. It also, like all artificial sweeteners, tastes like sugar! When your body tastes sugar, it begins the metabolic processes related to sugar. When it doesn't receive sugar, it increases your appetite in response. Artificial sweeteners just make you crave sugar, basically.

As for HFCS, there are three problems.

1) It has a very high glycemic index score, even compared to other glucose/fructose mixtures. Look up glycemic index to learn more.
2) It is often contaminated with mercury, which is toxic.
3) It contains high levels of fructose, which causes increased appetite, slowed metabolism, and insulin resistance (read: it makes you hungrier, fatter, and diabetic).

>>3464107
Sugar and fat are physically addictive. People who try to quit experience severe cravings, and if they quit cold turkey they will actually experience similar withdrawal symptoms to those of heroin. Telling someone to quit drinking soda is essentially the same as telling them to quit smoking crack.

>>3464231
>implying we don't scorn crackheads and leave them to their fate on the streets

>>3464231
Self control still comes into play.

Switching from soda to water took me a week. I would wake up some mornings with extreme headaches for about a month, and then it all stopped.

The problem with society today is that everything revolves around instant gratification and no self control.

Maybe i am different, but idk about comparing soda to heroin. Unless some people are just really that bad off.

>>3464244
>implying we don't throw them in jail where thes no chance of them getting a hold of drugs

lol at my country

>>3464244
Fair enough.

And, unlike crack, you can actually be perfectly healthy if you just eat sugar in moderation, so you don't have to quit cold turkey. And it's not suggested to try.

Oh, but you still shouldn't eat refined sugar. Fucks up your metabolism. Go with natural sources, like fruit and alcohol (in moderation).

>>3464248
The problem is that theres so much misinformation out there many people dont even realize what is causing them to get fat. People know the dangers of heroin, and that its incredibly physically addictive, they are supported by outreach programs and substitutes to help wean them off it.
When people get addicted to HFCS all they get is "stop eating fatty" rather than help the information about their addiction, and help point them towards healthier options that arent packed full of HFCS

Aspartame and other zero calorie sweeteners destroy the body's ability to give an estimate of a foods caloric value based on sweetness. The body can normally tell when it's time to stop eating by how sweet a food is.

When sweet foods provide no calories, you don't get as full when you eat foods that are sweetened with sugar, and you actually gain weight. This was news about a year or so ago in the science community.

By the way, kind of off topic, but do you Americans know why there was a sudden surge of "throwback" sodas, like Throwback Mountain Dew? It was because the price of fructose corn syrup was temporarily higher than the price of sugar (although I think the sugar might have come from cheaper sources such as from beets).

>>3464265
All of that is true also, but a lot of it comes from society wanting instant gratification.

>>3464227
>>Everything has been linked to cancer.

fixed that for you

>>3464061
There's probably nothing wrong with corn syrup. It's not particularly artificial. Heard a theory that its so much maligned in the States because it was putting tradition sugar producers out of business. There's difference between carbohydrates of course, but when it comes down to it they are just chains of sugar, and in this sense it's in a great many things. carrots, bread, potatoes, You cannot blame a company for putting such in food because they need to put -something- in there. It tastes sweeter, so less is needed as far as flavour is concerned.

Aspartame is bad because it makes the body think sugar is coming and releases insuline. This will make you crave sugar.

>>3464062
The "sugar is sugar" argument is stupid.

>>3464227
Actually, I looked into it some more. Apparently, more recent research has found that aspartame isn't carcinogenic after all.

So it's just an artificial sweetener. Still bad for you.

>>3464293
>There's probably nothing wrong with corn syrup.
Compared to other forms of sugar. Except that it's the sweetener most likely to cause diabetes. And it may have trace amounts of mercury in it.

>>3464313
Correlation is not causation.

The more sugar you eat the more your insulin metabolism will be stressed out. This is the cause of diabetes. Suppose the glycemic load is what matters.

>>3464323
Pure fructose increases insulin resistance more than pure glucose despite resulting in lower glycemic load.

>>3464337
Interesting.

Is it then found in foods in equal amounts to glucose?

>>3464090
>there's no real health problems with "skinnyfat"

"Both fat and muscle take up glucose from the blood in response to insulin stimulation, but the capacity of muscle in this regard far exceeds that of adipose tissue per unit weight (DeFronzo, 1997). Existing control mechanisms for carbohydrate homeostasis were established over evolutionary time during which ancestral body composition almost never approached the extremes of hyperadiposity and sarcopenia manifested by many contemporary humans. For such individuals a given insulin secretory pulse, in response to a carbohydrate-containing meal, now produces less reduction in blood glucose levels than would have been achieved for prior humans with evolutionarily "appropriate" body composition. Additional, "extra" pancreatic insulin secretion is required to produce glucose homeostasis. This constitutes functional insulin resistance, a pathophysiological state exacerbated by low muscular metabolic activity (another result of exercise deficit). (Eaton & Eaton, 1998) . . .Prevalence of type 2 diabetes (that related to insulin resistance and, by far, the most common form) has multiplied 10-fold in the United States since the 1930’s as the increasing disconnect between caloric accessibility and energy expenditure has produced and ever-larger number of obese, sarcopenic Americans."

--S. Boyd Eaton, MD and Stanley B. Eaton III "Evolution, Diet and Health"

>The more sugar you eat the more your insulin metabolism will be stressed out. This is the cause of diabetes.

fullretard alert.

Wonder why no one posted this yet.

Sugar: The Bitter Truth
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM