re: Your new Secretary of HHS has some wise words for you…

quote:

---

quote:
You said sugar is sugar insinuating that HFCS is just like table sugar.


Because it is. You've got some minor percentage differences in glucose & fructose; that's it.


quote:
I was responding to the stupid comment "sugar is sugar" There are different types of sugar. Glucose, Fructose, Lactose. Sucrose is glucose and fructose.

Then you're retarded, because you've already admitted you knew exactly what I was comparing: HFCS and table sugar. That was the entire context of the post I was responding to. I wasn't saying glucose is the same as sucrose, I was saying that HFCS is the same as table sugar.

---

Youve proven multiple times in this thread that you are a disingenuous frick face not arguing in good faith. Basically one of these cuck Destiny, SFP types. Drown yourself in corn syrup, I wouldnt give one single damn

quote:

---

I dont care.

---

Youre not alone. MAGA was always a Progressive movement that hijacked the Republican party.

Yall will accept socialism easily.

You shouldn’t even be whining since you didn’t vote for a presidential nominee yet you’ll continue your crying.

quote:

---

You shouldn’t even be whining since you didn’t vote for a presidential nominee

---

Not voting for the trash the two parties gave us is a choice.

Its as viable as yours.

quote:

---

The reason HFCS gets all the heat is because it's cheaper, and thus ends up in more stuff.

---

Exactly. Low info people only know that HFCS is bad; they don't understand why so they don't understand why table sugar is just as bad. It's the amount of the glucose/fructose combination we ingest that's killing us, not some minor difference in the glucose/fructose ratio.

quote:

---

He's actually right about this. There is no real difference. "Table sugar" is a ultra highly processed food stuff that is every bit as bad for you as HFCS. The reason HFCS gets all the heat is because it's cheaper, and thus ends up in more stuff.

---

No hes not. I dont think anyone is arguing that sugar is healthy. He said "sugar is sugar" and I correctly rebutted him. Chemically, sugars are different. The body must convert fructose to glucose in order to utilize it. A sugar higher in fructose is going to be processed by the body differently.

Id theorize that substituting sucrose for HFCS would probably have minimal impact on the population...BUT I cant say for certain.

quote:

---

No hes not. I dont think anyone is arguing that sugar is healthy. He said "sugar is sugar" and I correctly rebutted him. Chemically, sugars are different. The body must convert fructose to glucose in order to utilize it. A sugar higher in fructose is going to be processed by the body differently.

Id theorize that substituting sucrose for HFCS would probably have minimal impact on the population...BUT I cant say for certain.

---

He's practically right. The other poster talked through the very minor differences. For the purposes of Americans eating either in their diet, the differences are largely irrelevant.

quote:

---

I refuse to eat Mac N Cheese that isn't Tennessee Vol Orange

---

quote:

---

He's practically right. The other poster talked through the very minor differences. For the purposes of Americans eating either in their diet, the differences are largely irrelevant.

---

We dont know that. The only evidence is that obesity has been skyrocketing since the widespread use of HFCS started. One cant point solely at HFCS, but one also cant say there is no difference between that and sucrose.

That all is beyond the point though. He tried to call me out when I correctly pointed out these sugars are chemically different...then backtracked and tried to change my argument to something more convenient for him.