HFCS What Is It And How It Is Ruining The World.

Good morning ATS, I was feeling slightly insomniatic today, so I figured I would make a thread on HFCS.

First off, What is HFCS?

HFCS stands for High Fructose Corn Syrup, Now, for the sake of my own sanity, I am just going to call it HFCS or corn sugar. Both mean High Fructose Corn Syrup.

...any of a group of corn syrups that has undergone enzymatic processing to convert some of its glucose into fructose to produce a desired sweetness....
Wikipedia - Definiton of HFCS

So from this, we can draw that HFCS is not ONE specified product. There is no strict regulations on what this could possibly be, in fact, anything that has glucose. So what exactly do "They" use? Well:

According to the USDA, 24% of HFCS consists of water, and the rest sugars. The most widely used varieties of high-fructose corn syrup are: HFCS 55 (mostly used in soft drinks), approximately 55% fructose and 42% glucose; and HFCS 42 (used in many foods and baked goods), approximately 42% fructose and 53% glucose.[5] HFCS-90, approximately 90% fructose and 10% glucose, is used in small quantities for specialty applications, but primarily is used to blend with HFCS 42 to make HFCS 55

So those three are used to make most things, however if you look on the packaging, it does not say "High Fructose Corn Syrup -21 or -45 or anything. It just is labeled as "High Fructose Corn Syrup."

Q: So What Is HFCS?
A: Although there is guidelines on what precents of what goes into each kind, you do not know what kind you will be getting, and therefore do not know, and have no way of knowing, what exactly this mystery ingredient is.

So now we ask, Why does it matter? Those commercials say its just sugar!

Ok so many of you have seen commercials close to this one:
www.youtube.com...

So, if you buy into those commercials 100% or are a supporter of obesity, stop reading now.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ok, Now that that is out of the way, those commercials are not only propaganda (Lets play a game, how many techniques can YOU find in the video!) but incorrect. Sure, there where some scientists that were paid by the corn refiners that found that it does nothing bad to you, but what about the other scientists that are saying "You got to be kidding me."

For example...

The first experiment — male rats given water sweetened with high-fructose corn syrup in addition to a standard diet of rat chow gained much more weight than male rats that received water sweetened with table sugar, or sucrose, in conjunction with the standard diet. The concentration of sugar in the sucrose solution was the same as is found in some commercial soft drinks, while the high-fructose corn syrup solution was half as concentrated as most sodas.

The second experiment — the first long-term study of the effects of high-fructose corn syrup consumption on obesity in lab animals — monitored weight gain, body fat and triglyceride levels in rats with access to high-fructose corn syrup over a period of six months. Compared to animals eating only rat chow, rats on a diet rich in high-fructose corn syrup showed characteristic signs of a dangerous condition known in humans as the metabolic syndrome, including abnormal weight gain, significant increases in circulating triglycerides and augmented fat deposition, especially visceral fat around the belly. Male rats in particular ballooned in size: Animals with access to high-fructose corn syrup gained 48 percent more weight than those eating a normal diet. In humans, this would be equivalent to a 200-pound man gaining 96 pounds.

...and unlike the corn refiners, these studies were not paid by the people they attack. Now I know a lot of you are going to bring up the old artifical sweetener tests, where they mice were given over 200x the amount that humans would eat in a day, (Actually it was the human equal to 20 pounds of [Sweet n' Low was it?] Sweetener)
But this is different. in this study they only have the mice half as much as a soda, so don't even go there.

I want to conserve space here, so read this link:
www.globalhealingcenter.com...

One thing that intrests me is that it hardens and scars the liver. The liver is meant to process toxins. So, a logical person would deduct: HFCS Scars liver - Liver processes Toxins - Therefore, Hfcs is a toxin. I mean, it seems like the next logical step in research.

Also, further proof of it being bad for you: Obesity rates skyrocketed 30 years ago when HFCS became public.
It is in everything, and it is bad. Really bad. Which brings us to our last question...

Is there a light at the end of the tunnel?

Yes, there is. First off, HFCS is becoming more unpopular because of one reason and one reason only: HFCS is now more expensive that actual sugar. The reason companies used corn sugar in the first place is because it was cheap to produce and buy, but now that that is no longer the case, why use it?

Second: There is a new kid on the block, you know, that skinny hipster veggie kid? Yeah, well his name is Stevia And in some ways he is the Healthfreak jesus.

Stevia is a no calorie sweetener that is a protien base rather than carbohydrate.

Now before you all say in unison "ewwwwwwwwieeeee Q_Q" you must understand that A. Stevia is a leaf. Thats right, a leaf. It is a plant that you boil in water and than evaporate the tea. Thats all! No creepy chemicals or fancy procedures, actually in fact it so simple you can make this at your home! B. Stevia DOES have an aftertaste. I will admit it, it has a slight anise/licorice after taste. So stevia may not work for everything, but if your making somthing that licorice/anise would go with, or the food-sugar ratio is high enough that you wont taste it, it is great. (Also, unlike more sweeteners, stevia is natural, and works well in baked goods)

And Thirdly: You. You can make the diffrence with HFCS. How you may ask?
* Buy local products, they are less likely to contain HFCS
* Look at the ingredients. If it says HFCS or "Corn sugar" as they so cleverly call it somtimes now, put it down, and look at somthing else
* Don't give your children HFCR. If adults' organs are sensitive to it, what about kids?
* Support natural and artifical sweeteners. These companies, with support, may drive HFCS from the market with research and development of new, better sweeteners.

Well, Thats my post. Hope you learned somthing and/or got inspired to go look on your own. I feel I need to educate people about this kind of stuff (My mom went into DKA [Diabetic Ketone [big word with A I cant spell] Acitosis[?]] when I was like 8. She came out of it but she has had type one for over a decade now.) especially with the rise in childhood obesity ( 4th graders with heart attacks? Really?!?!)

Good post. I wish companies would stop polluting our food supply with unhealthy crap.

On another note, you live in Reno too? There seem to be a lot of conspiracy buffs here...

Originally posted by ArrowsNV
Good post. I wish companies would stop polluting our food supply with unhealthy crap.

On another note, you live in Reno too? There seem to be a lot of conspiracy buffs here...

Lol we are a big town. Although Ive only seen 4 people from reno, one of them is a grade A #*%Y(@&%

anyone see the SNL spoof of this ad?


It's basically exactly the same as that one, except at the end of it, the condescending lady's semi-retarded, obese daughter, played by SNL's newish fat guy; bobby moynihan...

...comes into the scene and makes a point that, no doubt, went over a few heads.

haha, at the end; "Get the facts, Go to our website (and no other websites)"

Study Finds High-Fructose Corn Syrup Contains Mercury
Wednesday, January 28, 2009; 12:00 AM
MONDAY, Jan. 26 (HealthDay News) -- Almost half of tested samples of commercial high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) contained mercury, which was also found in nearly a third of 55 popular brand-name food and beverage products where HFCS is the first- or second-highest labeled ingredient, according to two new U.S. studies.
HFCS has replaced sugar as the sweetener in many beverages and foods such as breads, cereals, breakfast bars, lunch meats, yogurts, soups and condiments. On average, Americans consume about 12 teaspoons per day of HFCS, but teens and other high consumers can take in 80 percent more HFCS than average...

...And in the second study, the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP), a non-profit watchdog group, found that nearly one in three of 55 brand-name foods contained mercury. The chemical was found most commonly in HFCS-containing dairy products, dressings and condiments.

Princeton researchers find that high-fructose corn syrup prompts considerably more weight gain
Rats with access to high-fructose corn syrup gained significantly more weight than those with access to table sugar, even when their overall caloric intake was the same.

In addition to causing significant weight gain in lab animals, long-term consumption of high-fructose corn syrup also led to abnormal increases in body fat, especially in the abdomen, and a rise in circulating blood fats called triglycerides. The researchers say the work sheds light on the factors contributing to obesity trends in the United States.

Corn byproduct fructose literally fuels cancer cell growth, study finds

Pancreatic tumor cells use fructose to divide and proliferate, U.S. researchers said on Monday in a study that challenges the common wisdom that all sugars are the same.

Tumor cells fed both glucose and fructose used the two sugars in two different ways, the team at the University of California Los Angeles found.

They said their finding, published in the journal Cancer Research, may help explain other studies that have linked fructose intake with pancreatic cancer, one of the deadliest cancer types.

"These findings show that cancer cells can readily metabolize fructose to increase proliferation," Dr. Anthony Heaney of UCLA's Jonsson Cancer Center and colleagues wrote.

probably a lot more "damaging" info out there now, I haven't been following it for a while.

Some good information in your post OP. The propaganda in that commercial.. unbelievable..

However I have to disagree with something in your post:

Support natural and artifical sweeteners.

I would not advice supporting artificial sweeteners. Artificial sweeteners such as Saccharin, Aspartame, Sucralose and Acesulfame are all sweeteners made in a labratory by chemical means and cannot be naturally broken down by your body. Instead, they clog up in your brains and organs to help develop cancer.

Of course the industry only promotes the positive side of this all. Since the body can't break it down. that means 0 calories!!!

WOOHEW! Stay in shape with Nutrasweet ladies! No added weight to your thighs with Candarel!

Brain tumors? Nah who cares that's not even proven!



.

reply to post by SergeantTrammelant

Now I know a lot of you are going to bring up the old artifical sweetener tests, where they mice were given over 200x the amount that humans would eat in a day, (Actually it was the human equal to 20 pounds of [Sweet n' Low was it?] Sweetener)

Also, Whats wrong with natural sweeteners? Like stevia?

reply to post by spw184


In this post it looks like I said that while in fact I didn't. I'm confused...

I am not surprised it is bad for you... when i think corn syrup i think GMO's.. and corn syrup is in so many types of food it almost seems unavoidable...

I used to have really bad acne problems which my family doctor was no use to me surprise surprise. Sugar was one of the 2 main things i cut out of my diet(the other being animal protein) and now my face is clear as ever! Another food people should avoid is white bread... i am sure there must be a topic about it already so ill just leave it at that.

EDIT: also have to disagree with the artificial sweeteners... aspartame.. really really bad for you

Originally posted by SergeantTrammelant
reply to post by spw184

 

In this post it looks like I said that while in fact I didn't. I'm confused...

Oh thats a quote from MY post.

reply to post by 1825114


Lol yes, ive seen several spoofs.

reply to post by spw184


Oh I see.. my bad. I'm new

Anyways, I was warning against artifical sweeteners. In my opinion they are very dangerous. A natural sweetener like Stevia is an option that deserves further research and is for now logically the best choice of the two.

I find it very funny indeed that Stevia is/was banned in several countries, while aspartame had no trouble passing through on the very first occasion, sometimes accompanied by the removal of key evidence in research reports.

On a side note, I think it's best to avoid sweeteners, including products with added sugar, alltogether. There is enough natural fructose and dextrose (?) in fruits for humans to go by. I sincerely believe we'd be best off avoiding anything that does not come straight from the land. You know, like humans have done for tens of thousands of years before the industrial revolution.

Originally posted by SergeantTrammelant
reply to post by spw184

 

I sincerely believe we'd be best off avoiding anything that does not come straight from the land. You know, like humans have done for tens of thousands of years before the industrial revolution.

Cavemen where the first people to make candies, so your argument is flawed.
Also, bread needs sugar so the yeast can live,
and what would life be without a dessert once in a while?

(also Im a pastry chef [well going to school to be one])

reply to post by spw184


I did not know that cavemen made candy. However, you know what I mean with my statements. If cavemen ate that candy like our children eat Frutella, Mentos and Snickers today, they too would develop serious health problems. I can only guess this was not so much of an issue, since the candy that they made would not be in abuncance like it is today. More like a bear finding a bee hive with honey just every once in a while.

The bread/sugar thing I don't quite follow. I think it's quite fine to use sugar, or salt for that matter, to make products. It comes from the land doesn't it. You can make simple modifications to make bread or salted products or a nice cooked stake with pepper What I meant is we would be better off avoiding food processed in factories. Better?

And I've been happily avoiding desserts for more than 2 years now. I've found that most of them (here in the Netherlands at least) have either High Frustose Corn Syrup, aspartame or any other atrificial sweetener in them. Or vanilline - popular in The Netherlands - an artificially made substance meant to resemble the taste of vanilla in many desserts while maintaining low prices. Real vanilla is too expensive.

I sincerely hope, since you made this topic, that you at least constrict yourself to some plain yoghurt or some healthy ice when having desserts. Cause you know what they say about HFCS, don't you?

reply to post by spw184


Hate to nitpick but I view artificial sweeteners as equal to HFCS in terms of damaging your body. I would not support any company that feels the need to create such products.

I think it's easier to reduce your overall sugar intake than to eliminate it completely. If more people stopped buying soft drinks and sweets loaded with HFCS, that would significantly force companies to consider using an alternative to HFCS.

reply to post by SergeantTrammelant


Thats why my boyfriends cafe uses honey and agave nectar and/or sugar in all their breads and drinks, with the exception of the sugarfree cookies ( 70% coco chips and stevia) and the whipped creams (Sugar.)
All the flavorshots are handmade (Sugar) and the commercial ones we do buy are CS NOT HFCS or splenda for the sugar free ones.

reply to post by spw184


One other wonderful thing about stevia is if you mix it with sugar 1/2 sugar 1/2 stevia it makes the sugar sweeter and you don't have to use as much. There is a blend you can buy called Truvia that is pure cane sugar mixed with stevia. Awesome sweetener. Instead of the 1 cup of sugar for a gallon of tea I only need to use 1/4 cup of Truvia.

Originally posted by Attrei
reply to post by spw184

 

One other wonderful thing about stevia is if you mix it with sugar 1/2 sugar 1/2 stevia it makes the sugar sweeter and you don't have to use as much. There is a blend you can buy called Truvia that is pure cane sugar mixed with stevia. Awesome sweetener. Instead of the 1 cup of sugar for a gallon of tea I only need to use 1/4 cup of Truvia.

Actually the blend is called sun crystals, truvia is just stevia I thought.
I buy resturant packs of stevia in the raw.
Also, just straight stevia is sweeter than sugar, and it has the same structure so you can bake with it.

Stevia tastes like %^it in coffee......................
2nd

For a long time, because I liked to see myself as someone skeptical of pseudo-medical claims and was too dumb and proud to actually examine the issue for myself, I believed the lie that sugar and HFCS are basically the same. Then I did the research as highlighted in the OP on how differently the body metabolizes them, regardless of their superficial similarities, and realized I'd been falling for propaganda.

It's quite simple. HFCS is a drug they add to junk food in order to make people consume more junk food. It metabolizes so much more rapidly that it causes your blood sugar to plummet, creating feelings of intense hunger even though you have consumed more than sufficient calories.

Try eliminating it from your diet for a while, then have some again and you will feel this effect quite strongly. The kind of intense craving which the HFCS crash produces is very different from normal hunger, and is obviously, to me, a huge part of the obesity problem in this country. And it is in everything, not just candy and soda. It's in crackers, breakfast cereal, you name it -- and now that people are catching on, they're hiding it under the more pleasant-sounding but just as toxic name "crystalline fructose" which may be even worse than HFCS and is certainly no better.

We made the switch to coconut sugar in our house. Its taste is so close to brown or yellow sugar that the switch was invisible to our kids.

en.wikipedia.org...