[kakacik]

Or... you know, there could be some little actual effort in shedding such addiction (sugar ain't that hard), build a bit of character and walk off better off in many regards. Winning against addiction won't kill you, break you or similar damage but makes you (much) stronger and healthier as a bonus. Why do people shy away from such things?

But no, lets do everything possible just to keep the comfortable crappy couch lifestyle, no sweat, no effort, miserable health, miserable life. Then there are articles how US population (which suffers the most these shit HFCS addictions and resulting obesity problems) is depressed... for many reasons of course, but this sort of helpless victim mindset is one of them.

[acuozzo]

> Why do people shy away from such things?

Have you ever met someone with a true addiction to food? I'm not talking about someone with a habitual craving for sweets. I'm talking about someone who consumes food compulsively like a chain-smoker; someone who, in the absence of whatever their favorites are, will consume and consume with little regard for what the food is: an entire jar of pickles, multiple pounds of grapes, a whole rotisserie chicken, et al.

I used to be one. I once ate six baked white onions¹ in one sitting before vomiting everywhere and rethinking my life.

I broke through naturally, but I wish GLP-1s had been prevalent at the time. Want to know what made breaking it so challenging?

  1. Unlike other addictions, you have to continue consuming this one or else you will die.

  2. Nearly every social event in the USA is tied in some way to food which means that you have to exercise willpower __constantly__ if you have a social life.

  3. People are more interested in shaming you than supporting you. Most want you to fail.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xV9spqCzSkQ

[tptacek]

There's nothing wrong with HFCS either, at least not that isn't also wrong with sugar. This is all just naturalist fallacy stuff.

[Groxx]

The HFCS stuff always feels weird to me. Like sure, there's glycemic index impact, it is measurably different, etc... but I feel like people don't realize that "high" fructose is different only by a few percent from table sugar, and is "high" only because it's being compared to regular corn syrup.

Like... HFCS-42 is 42% fructose. That's lower than cane / table sugar, which is 50%. If you really think fructose is the problem, HFCS-42 is an improvement. Or even better, embrace regular corn syrup because it has little to no fructose normally! It's nearly 100% glucose! (This is why 42% is "high")

And if it's glycemic index that people are worried about, throw in a tiny amount of dissolvable fiber in your drink and it'll lower that by more than the sugar balance affects it.

None of it makes sense.

[tptacek]

I don't believe it is measurably different! Apart from what you noted (HFCS is "high fructose" relative to normal corn syrup, not table sugar), ordinary sugars are broken down instantly by the human body.

The subtext and I think valid concern about HFCS is that it drastically reduces the cost of calorically sweetening foods and especially beverages.

But people routinely cruise past that to claims that HFCS itself is uniquely harmful to humans, and it isn't, at least no more than sugar is.

[Groxx]

I think it's fairly safe to say there's a measurable difference - fructose generally (afaict) has noticeably lower insulin responses compared to glucose. Though it's still very minor compared to the total change vs none of course, and I haven't seen much of anything showing evidence of a benefit compared to the other - just "technically different".

Definitely agreed that there's a weird demonizing of HFCS in particular though. Maybe because it sounds technical? It's easy to point to because it's common, and it doesn't sound "natural".

And personally I don't think HFCS's clear manufacturing benefits really affect much, it's just the most convenient so it's the most used. The addictive qualities of sugar are much more valuable, IMO They™ would continue to sweeten things at the same level even if it were completely banned. They'd just use something else, and sucrose is also very cheap.