Articles

122 thoughts on “The Sweetener Wars – HFCS Strikes Back

  1. Narad says:
    Really? We both agree that per capita sugar consumption increased as much as 11 lbs annually, since the advent of HFCS and is now about 8 lbs above what it was before.

    Do me a favor and don’t tell me what I agree with, especially when it includes the assertion that per capita sugar consumption has increased by “as much as 11 lbs annually.” Given that detailed replies seem to be causing you to resort to obtuseness, let’s have a little fun. You want to clearly tie HFCS to total sugar consumption to obesity, right? Let’s try a year-over-year visualization since the introduction of HFCS. Do you notice any issues here?

  2. Narad says:

    Not again.

  3. estockly says:

    >>>> Do me a favor and don’t tell me what I agree with

    So … you disagree with the data you linked to that showed that per capita sugar consumption is 8 lbs higher now than when HFCS was introduced. (sucrose is roughly the same, so the bulk of the increase in is HFCS), and that for some years it was as much as 11 lbs higher?

    >>>Given that detailed replies seem to be causing you to resort to obtuseness, let’s have a little fun. You want to clearly tie HFCS to total sugar consumption to obesity, right? Let’s try a year-over-year visualization since the introduction of HFCS. Do you notice any issues here?

    Aside from the data not being sourced? Or no context on the criteria from what’s being shown? Or that it contradicts the data you and I both linked to (I linked to the original, you linked to a secondary source.)?

    That was very little fun.

    ES

  4. Narad says:

    Aside from the data not being sourced? Or no context on the criteria from what’s being shown?

    It’s the same Table 50 USDA data as above, to the latest update, and I would have expected the shape of the HFCS curve to be recognizable to you. The “context” is that it’s not exactly a clean correlation signal by eyeball. Moreover, the “New Coke” hypothesis, which even W*kipedia files under “conspiracy theories” on the matter, would seem to instantly collapse.

  5. Pingback: Naida Avison
  6. chickenlips2007 says:

    When I was a kid soda was cane sugar based like the Coke version from Mexico today. All foods were mostly natural with minimal processing unlike today. If I want food like what I use to eat as a kid I have to buy organic, kosher or natural at a much higher price. At my favorite grocery store I can buy pure cane sugar based sodas and it’s a very cheap house brand. How do you explain the fact that big corporations cannot do the same? The natural question is this, why would anyone work so hard at creating an alternative sweetener if the natural product requires no processing? The store brand soda proves that it is NOT a cost issue so what is really going on here? I am sure the store brand is made by a major soda manufacturer because they don’t have their own plant. There is more going on here than just cost of manufacturing it’s obvious. The health of the consumer is not even a second thought so let’s be real here the Emperor is NAKED.

  7. Chris says:

    All foods were mostly natural with minimal processing unlike today.

    So you never ate pickles, sauerkraut, ketchup, mustard, bread, cornmeal, jam or jelly, tapioca pudding, canned veggies, ice cream, mayonnaise, vinegar, bacon, cheese or any of the other myriad types of food that were processed to keep them for more than a few days after harvest by methods that have been used for centuries?

  8. Narad says:

    The natural question is this, why would anyone work so hard at creating an alternative sweetener if the natural product requires no processing?

    You’re under the impression that sugar cane doesn’t require processing?

  9. The Dave says:

    OMG, the Emperor IS naked. I’m so relieved I’m not the only one that thought that. Now I feel free…

    But seriously, have you ever thought about WHY Mexcian Coke uses sugar cane and Coke from the USA uses HCFS? It because of tariffs that sugar is cheaper in Mexico than HFCS while its vice-versa in the USA. So maybe that cheap name brand is actually bottled in Mexico (or China, or anywhere else, etc.) instead of here. So which is more important, buying cheap soda from Mexico that uses “all natural” sugar cane or buying “Made in the USA” using “gonna kill you” HFCS?

  10. We’ve had other things blamed…calories, whole eggs, fats, red meat, carbs, now HFCS…but, what’s been the real problem and will continue to be the problem is unmanageable hunger…which leads to ‘cravings’…and why, no matter what you attack, blame, remove from the shelf, people will find something else to crave after. Are they going to remove all processed foods too? what about Beer? Cakes? Candy? And, one other thing, you don’t have to be fat to be unhealthy.

    It’s the hormones and other chemicals in the production of regular foods (dairy, meats, fruits, vegetables, grains) that are producing it the cravings to begin with. Just like the chickens and cattle shot up with them or fed them so they eat faster, and eat more..to get fatter faster, they’re the same that go in us. Not only producing the hunger and cravings, but hormones and toxins (pesticides) slowing metabolism, and causing digestive and other hormonal problems. That’s part of my hypothesis of health..cutting out the Toxins, that cause the cravings, and slow metabolisms and cause health problems. But, once again, ‘barking up the wrong tree’ :) imo is the conventional health and diet world. Remove all HFCS, you’ll have chemical substitutes and additives to affect more health problems when it is the Toxins in the production that is the culprit all along.

  11. estockly says:

    >>>>Mexcian Coke uses sugar cane and Coke from the USA uses HCFS?

    Can sugar and HFCS are virtually the same, chemically.

    Choose you poison. Literally.

    ES

  12. So, actually, I agree in with the OP ..there is a lot of misinformation exactly :)

  13. and, one more thing..I just converted a carrot cake recipe to organic and healthy..so I wanted to invite any and all to try it !…

    http://gethealthybehappy.yolasite.com/comments-and-new-findings/organic-carrot-pineapple-cake-recipe-

  14. The Dave says:

    estockly:

    That’s kind of what we’ve been saying the whole time. Maybe my comment was a little confusing, but I was trying to point out that Mexico uses sugar cane and we use HFCS purely for monetary reasons. Tariffs have made cane sugar cheaper than HFCS in Mexico, while it has made it more expensive than HFCS in the States.

  15. Narad says:

    It’s the hormones and other chemicals in the production of regular foods (dairy, meats, fruits, vegetables, grains) that are producing it the cravings to begin with.

    Which of course explains why obesity was well known in ancient Egypt.

  16. Well..narad, I’m trying to deal with the cravings problem, you can still eat poorly (imbalanced diet) and not have enough correct nutrients I suppose..but, less toxins would help anyone anyway imo.

  17. Narad says:

    Well..narad, I’m trying to deal with the cravings problem

    You haven’t demonstrated the existence of “the cravings problem.”

  18. Sure narad..here’s a link..that gives detail of what happens because of all the pesticides/hormones etc in regular grown food that affect us and our cravings…

    http://www.livestrong.com/article/272122-how-do-organic-foods-help-you-lose-weight/

    The best way to lose weight is to adopt healthy eating habits. Consuming organic and whole foods, instead of processed snacks or junk foods, delivers the highest nutritional content. As a rule of thumb, the closer the food to its original form, the better it is for your health. Furthermore, as part of a weight loss program, avoiding non-organic foods is essential as these often contain chemical additives that can lead to weight gain.

  19. The Dave says:

    “…not have enough correct nutrients” ?

    If some nutrients can be correct, does that make others not correct?

    Nutrient
    Noun:
    A substance that provides nourishment essential for growth and the maintenance of life.

    Would a “not correct” nutrient be one of the elusive “toxins” that SCAM’ers love to tout that need to be “detoxed”?

  20. That or the correct balance of nutrients ..The Dave..yes. I believe added toxins, that aren’t naturally in grown food affects the body and causes more problems.

  21. The Dave says:

    Are you really claiming that nutrients, which, by definition, provide nourishment essential for growth and the maintenance of life, can be considered a “toxin” that we should avoid? That’s ridiculous.

    Additionally, please provide reliable evidence that non-organic food “often contain chemical additives that can lead to weight gain.” (btw, Livestrong is not a reliable source)

Comments are closed.