Guest viewing limit reached
  • You have reached the maximum number of guest views allowed
  • Please register below to remove this limitation

High Fructose Corn Syrup is.....

pmiller383

pmiller383

Well-known member
Perfectly fine according to a recent series of television adds.
[youtube]EEbRxTOyGf0&hl[/youtube]
[youtube]KVsgXPt564Q&hl[/youtube]
Also:
Invalid Link Removed

I guarantee people out there will see these commercials and think," HFCS is all natural, it has to be good for you." Also if I remember correctly, fructose can only be metabolized and stored in the liver unlike glucose which can be stored in muscles as glycogen. Therefore once the liver has full stores of Fructose it will convert the excess fructose into triglycerides. I personally stay away from HFCS and try to not get fructose in my diet at all unless it is from fruits, I am curious to what everyone else thinks about HFCS?
 
The devil! No, in all seriousness you are correct: Fructose has only 5% binding affinity to muscle GLUT receptors. That being said, fructose stores in the liver are necessary, but should be obtained by fruit!

(I just regurgitated your post, really).
 
Those commercials are comdemning countless people to adult onset diabetes.

HFCS is nothing but deleterious to our culture - provides no nutritional value (empty calories) and only half of its constituents has any practical chance of being metabolised for energy, as pretty much the only time when the liver is low on glycogen is first thing in the morning or after fasting. There is even research that suggests fructose generates insulin resistance faster than glucose.

HFCS has a reasonably low GI (typically in the 60s), but Just because it's got a moderate glycemic index does not make it worthy of ingestion - there are other factors that effect insulin sensitivity and bodyweight, not just gi.
 
Mulletsoldier said:
The devil! No, in all seriousness you are correct: Fructose has only 5% binding affinity to muscle GLUT receptors. That being said, fructose stores in the liver are necessary, but should be obtained by fruit!

(I just regurgitated your post, really).
Click to expand...
When I seen you were the first responder I thought, "SOB mullets going to get all scientific and prove me completely wrong but at least no one except for Strategicmove and a couple others will understand him." lol

Fructose can definitely be beneficial in some instances as well because it replenishes liver stores so rapidly. Someone that is truly carb depleted will notice less fatigue if they use a sucrose solution because the fructose will replenish the liver and the glucose can either be stored in muscle or burned off as well. The problem with these adds is that they just show people eating or drinking junk foods that are not going to benefit their sitting around and doing nothing, and that just represents way to much of the US public lol.
 
pmiller383 said:
When I seen you were the first responder I thought, "SOB mullets going to get all scientific and prove me completely wrong but at least no one except for Strategicmove and a couple others will understand him." lol

Fructose can definitely be beneficial in some instances as well because it replenishes liver stores so rapidly. Someone that is truly carb depleted will notice less fatigue if they use a sucrose solution because the fructose will replenish the liver and the glucose can either be stored in muscle or burned off as well. The problem with these adds is that they just show people eating or drinking junk foods that are not going to benefit their sitting around and doing nothing, and that just represents way to much of the US public lol.
Click to expand...

LOL!

No, my mind and fingers are weary at the moment from overactivity and the beginning of the semester; empirio-scientific debate is beyond my capacities right now.
 
pmiller383 said:
Perfectly fine according to a recent series of television adds.
Click to expand...

The adds will say WHATEVER the majority of average consumers want to hear. It is not just in the US, it is a problem of all developed countries. People will always choose a path of least resistance to boost their serotonin levels: :burg::pizza::donut::cheers:. They couldn't care less about their health. If they did, doctors and pharmaceuticals would be out of business :lol: Only crazy people eat clean and exercise;)
 
The natural sugars in vegetables and fruits seem perfectly fine. But I definitely wouldn't watch these commercials and then go consume a package of candy or anything of that sort.
 
They need to have a commercial that antagonizes these. These commercials basically sum up the vast majority of people (the uneducated one on the left) and the fructose pusher (equally uneducated on the right).
 
I hate corn.

We pay farmers to produce corn, whether it gets used or not. They grow corn, they're guarenteed a dollar figure.

We wonder why the cost of produce has been gradually increasing (other than gas prices :) ) It's cause farmers are switching to corn, a sure thing for their wallet.

Corn is put in almost everything in this country because we have so ***damn much of it laying around.

Now we're trying to convince people that ethanol is a viable alternative to oil. No, that means we'd be growing even more corn than we already are. This ethanol push would also raise the demand for corn (which is also used as animal feed) thus causing the price of all other commodities to rise as well.

We need to diversify our farming practices instead of embracing one grain(Rodja edit :) ) that, to this individual, doesn't even taste that good.

Sorry for soapboxing. I really hate corn.
 
Last edited:
We are overwhelmed and inundated with it. One could really almost consider it a plague, simply because of its ubiquity.

Corn, in and of itself is really a decent vegetable. Not the best in terms of nutrition, but not horrible either. But when a vast majority of foods on the market are made from the stuff, you quickly overload your body with it, and too much of anything is deleterious. Also, eating more corn products can replace the consumption of other, more beneficial foods, making the situation even worse.

Cattle are fed excessive amounts of corn to fatten them up - if people eat the same way, it is not surprising that we too balloon like an endomorph bulking at thanksgiving.
 
We are overwhelmed and inundated with it. One could really almost consider it a plague, simply because of its ubiquity.

Corn, in and of itself is really a decent vegetable. Not the best in terms of nutrition, but not horrible either. But when a vast majority of foods on the market are made from the stuff, you quickly overload your body with it, and too much of anything is deleterious. Also, eating more corn products can replace the consumption of other, more beneficial foods, making the situation even worse.

Cattle are fed excessive amounts of corn to fatten them up - if people eat the same way, it is not surprising that we too balloon like an endomorph bulking at thanksgiving.
 
Resolve said:
balloon like an endomorph bulking at thanksgiving.
Click to expand...

As an endomorph looking forward to thanksgiving, I am offended by that statement. ahhahaha! :toofunny:
 
Resolve said:
We are overwhelmed and inundated with it. One could really almost consider it a plague, simply because of its ubiquity.

Corn, in and of itself is really a decent vegetable. Not the best in terms of nutrition, but not horrible either. But when a vast majority of foods on the market are made from the stuff, you quickly overload your body with it, and too much of anything is deleterious. Also, eating more corn products can replace the consumption of other, more beneficial foods, making the situation even worse.

Cattle are fed excessive amounts of corn to fatten them up - if people eat the same way, it is not surprising that we too balloon like an endomorph bulking at thanksgiving.
Click to expand...
Except it's not a vegetable, it's a grain. It's also the most GE crop consumed on a frequent basis.
 
SilentBob187 said:
I hate corn.

We pay farmers to produce corn, whether it gets used or not. They grow corn, they're guarenteed a dollar figure.

We wonder why the cost of produce has been gradually increasing (other than gas prices :) ) It's cause farmers are switching to corn, a sure thing for their wallet.

Corn is put in almost everything in this country because we have so ***damn much of it laying around.

Now we're trying to convince people that ethanol is a viable alternative to oil. No, that means we'd be growing even more corn than we already are. This ethanol push would also raise the demand for corn (which is also used as animal feed) thus causing the price of all other commodities to rise as well.

We need to diversify our farming practices instead of embracing one grain(Rodja edit :) ) that, to this individual, doesn't even taste that good.

Sorry for soapboxing. I really hate corn.
Click to expand...
If the tariffs & quotas on sugar weren't so high, then HFCS wouldn't be popular. As it is, sugar is twice as expensive in the US as other countries. THAT is the reason that HFCS is popular. It has nothing to do with corn being some amazing, cost effective crop...corn just doesn't have those associated costs. If they got rid of the tariffs and quotas on sugar, then they would get rid of HFCS at the same time. Stupid system......
 
bioman said:
Tobacco and cocaine are also 100% natural:study::study::twisted::blink:
Click to expand...

this is true. but cigarrettes also have a ton of additives which make it a lot worse for u. if there was just straight tobacco in their i don't think it would be as bad. instead you're getting the tar and all that other crap in it. not saying it would be good for u but would probably not kill as many people
 
BrMe86 said:
If the tariffs & quotas on sugar weren't so high, then HFCS wouldn't be popular. As it is, sugar is twice as expensive in the US as other countries. THAT is the reason that HFCS is popular. It has nothing to do with corn being some amazing, cost effective crop...corn just doesn't have those associated costs. If they got rid of the tariffs and quotas on sugar, then they would get rid of HFCS at the same time. Stupid system......
Click to expand...

if that stupid system wasn't in place anybody who sells sugar in the united states would never sell it and it would destroy those business. there are certain things that factor into setting a tarriff on things. most of it is to keep domestic products competetive. there's no way we could compete with these undeveloped countries paying their employees $3 a month
 
jsp0785 said:
if that stupid system wasn't in place anybody who sells sugar in the united states would never sell it and it would destroy those business. there are certain things that factor into setting a tarriff on things. most of it is to keep domestic products competetive. there's no way we could compete with these undeveloped countries paying their employees $3 a month
Click to expand...
I would hate to pay less money for a higher standard of living. :) Besides, who says that they are staying competitive? They're not, which is the problem. This article is a pretty good read:
Invalid Link Removed

What if they started growing oranges in Alaska, which would more than double the price and then put in place tariffs that would make the Alaskan orange growers "competitive"? Same thing is happening now with sugar.

Of course I support American farmers....to a point. There aren't very many sugar producers left in the US. We are paying a huge premium so just a few guys can keep making lots of money. It doesn't seem very practical to me. What's the worse thing that would happen if they stopped producing sugar? There are not very many American jobs there in the grand scheme of things. Lots of workers, but not many Americans and it wouldn't have much of an economic influence IMO. If it was a huge part of the American market...kind of the way corn is, then I wouldn't have a problem with it. But since it's sugar.......

Wow, sorry to turn this into a political debate. :) We can agree to disagree.
 
BrMe86 said:
I would hate to pay less money for a higher standard of living. :) Besides, who says that they are staying competitive? They're not, which is the problem. This article is a pretty good read:
Invalid Link Removed

What if they started growing oranges in Alaska, which would more than double the price and then put in place tariffs that would make the Alaskan orange growers "competitive"? Same thing is happening now with sugar.

Of course I support American farmers....to a point. There aren't very many sugar producers left in the US. We are paying a huge premium so just a few guys can keep making lots of money. It doesn't seem very practical to me. What's the worse thing that would happen if they stopped producing sugar? There are not very many American jobs there in the grand scheme of things. Lots of workers, but not many Americans and it wouldn't have much of an economic influence IMO. If it was a huge part of the American market...kind of the way corn is, then I wouldn't have a problem with it. But since it's sugar.......

Wow, sorry to turn this into a political debate. :) We can agree to disagree.
Click to expand...

i have a solution. sugar is bad for u don't buy it :icon_lol:
 
SilentBob187 said:
I hate corn.

We pay farmers to produce corn, whether it gets used or not. They grow corn, they're guarenteed a dollar figure.
Click to expand...

did you know that fresno valley, ca produces more food than the state of north dakota, but fresno valley can't get subsidies, because they don't produce starches.

i hate corn as well, but only because it gets stuck in my teeth. potatoes are pretty wretched too. which is worse for you out of curiousity? potatoes or HFCS?
 
suncloud said:
did you know that fresno valley, ca produces more food than the state of north dakota, but fresno valley can't get subsidies, because they don't produce starches.

i hate corn as well, but only because it gets stuck in my teeth. potatoes are pretty wretched too. which is worse for you out of curiousity? potatoes or HFCS?
Click to expand...
Sweet potatoes >white potatoes>HFCS
 
thanks. i heard white potatoes are bad. my dad who is a member of canada's ministry of health says they're worse than people think, so i was idly curious which was the worse of the two.
 
suncloud said:
thanks. i heard white potatoes are bad. my dad who is a member of canada's ministry of health says they're worse than people think, so i was idly curious which was the worse of the two.
Click to expand...
Interesting!, Yeah while whites do contain the same amount of vit/min as sweets, they are hi-glycemic, whereas sweets are slow burning carb. Making them popular amongst bodybuilders.
 
White potatoes are nothing more than sugar... and contain miniscule amounts of nutritional benefit IMO.

On the topic this is just disgusting... enjoy your food america... and your illnesses with it.
 
White potatoes are nothing more than sugar... and contain miniscule amounts of nutritional benefit IMO.

On the topic this is just disgusting... enjoy your food america... and your illnesses with it.
 
jsp0785 said:
this is true. but cigarrettes also have a ton of additives which make it a lot worse for u. if there was just straight tobacco in their i don't think it would be as bad. instead you're getting the tar and all that other crap in it. not saying it would be good for u but would probably not kill as many people
Click to expand...

the tar is a product of combustion from natural tobacco

the radioactive stuff is mostly thorium daughter products from the soil it was grown in

it's pretty much just as bad either way
 
Enjoy in moderation....when was the last time you heard that about something that was actually healthy for you? That's what I thought. Isn't it unfortunate how advertising is used to spin unhealthy products as "healthy" to the uneducated?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top