re: Corn Lobby already whining about Costs changing to Pure Sugar vs HFCS.

I will let RFK Junior do my talking for me, ban HFCS and all the mfering Frankenstein foods

quote:

---

sucrose inverts to glucose and fructose in Coke and is chemically identical to the sugars in HFCS Coke.

---

I've heard that HFCS is worse than sugar. Is that just a common misconception?

quote:

---

I've heard that HFCS is worse than sugar. Is that just a common misconception?

---

The vast majority of studies that study it via human or animal conclude they are equally bad. When people bring up the idea that the HFCS is bad because it is metabolized through the liver is reasonable but using it to say sucrose (cane/beet sugar) is better defies logic because half the sugars in sucrose are metabolized through the liver. Once hydrolysis (sucrose) or inversion (HFCS) occurs, they are chemically identical except for small differences in the balance of glucose and fructose depending on which HFCS formulation is used.

I think the reason HFCS is demonized is because it is the most common sweetener used in ultra-processed foods. So it is used in a large number of foods that are "bad" for you. The high use is simply because it is the cheapest form of sweetener, get rid of it and sucrose will be used instead and will then become the poster child for evil sugars.

The somewhat hidden problem with HFCS is that it is used (usually in its 42 form*) in a ton of savory ultra-processed foods where people are often oblivious to its use because the final product isn't what they consider sweet. If HFCS are gone then you just use sucrose instead. Where you would normally use HFCS 42 you would just use a slightly lower weight of sucrose to get the same sweetness and if you replace HFCS 55 you would use either a slightly higher weight of sucrose to match the sweetness or use a slightly lower amount and use some maltose. The maltose is also a disaccharide but both sugars are fructose so it could be used to match the higher fructose level of HFCS 55.


* HFCS comes in two basic forms 42 and 55. That represents the percentage of fructose in the mix. Since fructose is "sweeter" than glucose 55 is used in sweet beverages and foods, and 42 is generally used in savory foods. Sucrose is a 50/50 mix so as mentioned above to replace HFCS with sucrose or vice versa you have to adjust the amounts to get the same final sweetness.

Thanks Clames and Obtuse1.

And to echo what you guys said, according to Duckduckgo's AI answer:

quote:

---

The FDA states that there is no evidence suggesting that HFCS 42 or HFCS 55 is less safe than traditional sweeteners like sucrose or honey. Both types are considered safe for consumption when used in moderation.

---

I'm almost disappointed that HFCS isn't the Boogeyman that I thought it was.

I farm 2000 acres of corn

I love these threads .

It exemplifies the norm on this board for years and years. A bunch of dumbass know it mother frickers that spew a bunch of BS about a topic they know shite about.


F Coke…. Want to be healthier drink water.
Mae while I’m getting ready to harvest nest week.
Looks like a big crop!

Wish me luck haters. !!!!!

Enjoy the welfare from our government

High fructose corn syrup ruined the flavor of Coca-Cola a while back, now we have to revert to drinking Mexican Coke, which is effectively the real Coca-Cola recipe.

quote:

---

That is absolutely a sham and a detriment to consumers.

---

It is and now I'm seeing E15 in 87 and 89 octane and E10 only in 93 octane at some pumps around East Arkansas. I need non-ethanol 93 octane gas for my truck and I now use the same for my OPE since I don't use that much anymore but it's harder to find.

quote:

---

The vast majority of studies that study it via human or animal conclude they are equally bad. When people bring up the idea that the HFCS is bad because it is metabolized through the liver is reasonable

---

There’s very little empirical data of what HFCS and other additives do to metabolic health though. I generally try to avoid the shite. To put it most simply, an engine will run on shitty gas, but that shitty gas will ultimately lead to the engine having more problems and a shorter useful life