[infecto]

> Also interesting that Heinz’s ketchup (in be the US) is now full of high fructose corn syrup and artificial food dyes, when (from the article) it started as the better/safer/more natural option

Amazing the leaps you took to make this statement. 1) There are no food dyes that I am aware of. 2) I don't think the science is conclusive that HFCS is any worse than sugar. 3) They make many varieties, some which use cane sugar instead of HFCS. 4) What does this have anything to to with the US?

[pfdietz]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3649104/ (2013)

> Both controversy and confusion exist concerning fructose, sucrose, and high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) with respect to their metabolism and health effects. These concerns have often been fueled by speculation based on limited data or animal studies. In retrospect, recent controversies arose when a scientific commentary was published suggesting a possible unique link between HFCS consumption and obesity. Since then, a broad scientific consensus has emerged that there are no metabolic or endocrine response differences between HFCS and sucrose related to obesity or any other adverse health outcome. This equivalence is not surprising given that both of these sugars contain approximately equal amounts of fructose and glucose, contain the same number of calories, possess the same level of sweetness, and are absorbed identically through the gastrointestinal tract. [...]

[infecto]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9551185/ (2022)

> In conclusion, analysis of data from the literature suggests that HFCS consumption was associated with a higher level of CRP compared to sucrose, whilst no significant changes between the two sweeteners were evident in other anthropometric and metabolic parameters

We could go back and forth all day long posting studies from nih.gov, lets not be silly. I don't think what you have provided disproves my statement. The science is inconclusive, we don't know that HFCS is materially worse than sugar. I think we can say sugar in any form is not great in large quantities but I don't think we know for certain how worse, if any, HFCS is compared to natural sugar.

[biomcgary]

Profits drive use of HFCS because fructose is sweeter than glucose. A pinch of enzyme converts glucose to fructose and saves a bunch of money.

Fructose interferes with glucose use and regulation. The real comparison to be made is between normal corn syrup (only glucose) and HFCS (about half fructose), not sugar (about half fructose).

When using crude tools to evaluate metabolism like the glycemic index, which only considers blood glucose, it appears that fructose is better. The modern Western diet leads to obesity, diabetes, and fatty liver disease (NAFLD) because fructose metabolism collides with lipid metabolism in the liver.

[rendang]

HFCS has about the same amount of fructose as its usual substitute, sucrose. I don't see very many products around me sweetened with pure glucose

[hombre_fatal]

The HFCS scare reminds me of the seed oil scare: people over-eating thousands of calories of highly palatable foods looking for one evil ingredient that is causing their problems instead of questioning their huge calorie intake.

As if replacing canola with butter and HFCS with sucrose in their junk food will cure them of their over eating.

[infecto]

Thats the thing that annoys me about it. It reminds me of how table salt is toxic when eaten in massive quantities. People love to throw up all these studies and fear monge...shoot when your driving your car, all the cars around you have exhaust that you are breathing in. Sure if you are knocking back a liter of coke a day, maybe HFCS is materially worse than cane sugar but I would agrue the greater threat is consuming that much sugar.

Don't get me started on seed oils......

[infecto]

This still does not really convince me that it is materially different at scale. I think what I said still holds true.

[lmm]

> I don't think the science is conclusive that HFCS is any worse than sugar.

The science is rarely conclusive about anything. There is enough evidence to suggest risks from high HFCS consumption to warrant caution.

> 3) They make many varieties, some which use cane sugar instead of HFCS. 4) What does this have anything to to with the US?

The US is associated with high HFCS consumption. I would suspect that these points are related and those non-HFCS varieties are more popular outside the US.

[infecto]

You did not prove it’s materially more harmful. Yes science is rarely conclusive but we have enough studies on both sides and it’s unclear how harmful it is in low quantities. I think we all can generally agree that higher consumption quantities of any type of sweetener is generally not healthy.

The point about the US is the parent pointed it out as a jab when in reality they were wrong on multiple accounts.

[lmm]

> You did not prove it’s materially more harmful. Yes science is rarely conclusive but we have enough studies on both sides and it’s unclear how harmful it is in low quantities. I think we all can generally agree that higher consumption quantities of any type of sweetener is generally not healthy.

All true, and all beside the point. The best available evidence suggests - not proves, but suggests - that HFCS consumption is more harmful than the alternatives.

[infecto]

Going back to my original point. I don't think any of the science suggests that HFCS in moderate amounts has any material difference. But...like I also keep saying, none of the science is really conclusive on any of this but what I think is a generally agreed, sweetners are not healthy in frequent larger quantities.