File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEbRxTOyGf0

Every time I see this commercial a nearby puppy dies.
>> Anonymous
High-fructose corn syrup isn't any worse than sucrose (the stuff you keep in your sugar bowl). They're practically the same thing.

It's just because it is cheap and commonly used in junk food that it is associated with special health risks.

Generally, you can improve your diet a lot if you never eat anything made with soy products or HFCS, but it's not because soy or HFCS are inherently evil, it's just that avoiding both of them basically eliminates junk food from your diet.
>> Anonymous
>>433312
except hfcs has a much higher level of processing and the use of a gmo enzyme required to produce it.

cane sugar is just dried liquid
>> Anonymous
>>433332
Do you seriously think the amount of "processing" determines whether something is good or bad?

Botulinum is all-natural.

If you think cane sugar is less likely to make you obese or diabetic than HFCS, you're a fucking idiot.
>> Anonymous
>>433312
hfcs represses the body's "full feeling" indicators. why do you think someone can down a 2 litre bottle of coke so much easier than a 2 litre bottle of water?
>> Anonymous
>>433503
I'm in Canada, and the coke here is made with cane sugar, and it goes down just as easily, and is just as bad for you.

HFCS is SUGAR. Sugar is bad for you. It doesn't fucking matter whether it's corn syrup, cane sugar, maple syrup, or honey. It is all sugar, and it is all very close to being nutritionally equivalent.

The health benefits of replacing HFCS (worst reputation) with honey (best reputation) are insignificant.

This overspecific bullshit about HFCS is like talking about the dangers of drinking beer and driving. It implies by omission that drinking wine and driving is not so bad, when there's no actual difference.
>> Anonymous
>>433503
huh?

I've drank entire bottles of water/tea in one gulp before, but drinking a can of coke in less than 10 sips makes me feel like shit.
>> Anonymous
>>433612
You shouldn't be cruel to the pantsdon't/fit/ers with their terrible aversion to drinking water and their soda gluttony, to who come here to talk about the evil conspiracies that make them fat.
>> Anonymous
>>433615
Please rephrase this post, I have no idea what you're trying to say
>> Anonymous
>>433624
2nd'd
>> Anonymous
>>433624
>>433629
There's a superfluous "to" in there, but I don't see what's hard to understand.

Someone who has an easier time drinking a 2-liter bottle of coke than a 2-liter of water probably does so regularly and is horribly fat.

These are the kinds of people who blame things like the evil corporations sneaking evil ingredients into their food instead of their own disgusting fatass habits.
>> Anonymous
i'm quite sure you have drank one bottle of tea/water in one gulp, because your throat is as wide as a toilet seat right? and it can just pour in there?
>> Anonymous
>>433615
its not a conspiracy, fuckbag, its the truth. When you pig out and HFCS are ingested, they suppress your body's ability to realize that it's full, and so you eat more.
>> Anonymous
>>433634
dont speak of things that you're ignorant in, kid
>> Anonymous
>>433641
>>433644
This is a property of FRUCTOSE, you ignorami.

HFCS is most commonly used as HFCS 55 or HFCS 42. This means that they are 55% and 42% fructose, with the rest being glucose.

Cane sugar is sucrose. A molecule of sucrose is a molecule of fructose bonded to a molecule of glucose. Your saliva contains an enzyme which quickly converts sucrose to 50% glucose / 50% fructose, making sucrose exactly nutritionally equivalent to HFCS 50.

Fructose is good because it is roughly twice as sweet as glucose for the same number of calories. It is known as "fruit sugar" because it is very common in sweet fruits.

Fructose is bad because, unlike glucose, it doesn't trigger a satiety response. (no, it does NOT suppress the satiety response, it is simply that your body does not count the fructose when it decides whether it is full)

However, HFCS is basically equivalent to sucrose in fructose content. Honey and maple syrup also contain lots of fructose. Sugar is sugar.

If you want a lower-fructose sweetener, then HFCS 42 is actually somewhat "better" than sucrose, while HFCS 55 is slightly "worse", but they're all in the same neighborhood.

Your attitude that HFCS is especially bad is ignorant and ridiculous.