Nanny State in New York

[Parkbandit]

I thought HFCS and table sugar are basically the same thing?

[Renian]

I thought HFCS and table sugar are basically the same thing?

Yep.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

I'm trying to find it but I thought there was a study done on lab rats where they fed one group HFCS, one group essentially table sugar, and kept the rest of their diet otherwise the same, and the HFCS group still became overwhelmingly majorly obese while the table sugar group didn't experience as drastic a change?

[Renian]

I'm trying to find it but I thought there was a study done on lab rats where they fed one group HFCS, one group essentially table sugar, and kept the rest of their diet otherwise the same, and the HFCS group still became overwhelmingly majorly obese while the table sugar group didn't experience as drastic a change?

I think I got it. The 12-hour access to fructose and sucrose is about the same if you look at the chart, and they didn't do 24 access to both HFCS and sucrose; just HFCS.

EDIT: Wow this study is misleading. You have to look at the second chart to see that the 12-hour sucrose group in fact gained more weight than the 12-hour HFCS group. This makes sense given the proportions of sugars given: 8% * .55 = 4.4% fructose as HFCS, 10% * .5 = 5% fructose as sucrose.

[diethx]

But their juice does. The sugar in unsweetened fruit juice is all fructose, and they are implicated.

EDIT: Here's one where they definitely have unsweetened juice.

EDIT 2: And another!

Sure, just keep in mind that unsweetened juice has a low GI, which contradicts pretty much everything you said in your first post. Just sayin'.

Anything in excess will cause obesity. Not everything causes blood sugar spikes.

[Latrinsorm]

If you can't figure out why you are getting fat I want you out of the gene pool.

So... you want a gene pool of chemistry majors? Have you ever met a chemistry major?

Because you blamed simply fructose for obesity. My point is, naturally occurring fructose is only in fruits (and honey I think too?).

Fruits do not cause obesity, so fructose doesn't cause obesity.

Human refining and adding with other sugars, in the large amounts added to things like soda and candy, DO cause obesity. So it's refined sugars, and not fructose, that cause obesity.

Is this like saying...

Almonds do not cause death, so cyanide doesn't cause death.

?

[Renian]

Sure, just keep in mind that unsweetened juice has a low GI, which contradicts pretty much everything you said in your first post. Just sayin'.

Fructose is absorbed more slowly than glucose by the intestines; that is why they have a low glycemic index, true. The insulin increase may be lower, but it may also last longer.

Not seeing the contradiction though. I have established the following through the use of scientific articles:

* HFCS and Sucrose are equally bad.
* Fructose, HFCS, and Sucrose cause the same negative metabolic effects.
* Fructose causes leptin resistance, making you feel less full when you eat anything at all, increasing your overall caloric intake.
* Glucose in the same quantity does not cause the negative metabolic effects.
* Scientists have linked pure fructose directly to obesity in multiple studies.
* Unsweetened fruit juices, containing almost pure fructose, are linked in obesity, thus linking fructose-based obesity to a common food consumed by humans, especially in regards to sugar density of the item you are consuming.

The above facts give you what you wanted: the proof fructose is what's bad for you, not these refined sugars.

Perhaps at some point in this discussion, I did make a mistake; I did trip up. If so, you are welcome to point out the specific quote. But it won't change the facts; I have given you a breadth of scientific articles for you to peruse that prove the relationship between fructose and obesity independent of HFCS and sucrose and regardless of its glycemic index.

Any error that I may have in haste or without remembering some sort of corollary made does not change the facts that I have presented but refuse to read. You continue to assert that it is refined sugar, likely due to your individual bias, but actual science says otherwise. Further, you have not presented a single scientific article with contradictory data to refute any of these points. If you refuse to offer an article that contradicts my points, or read any of the science that I have provided, then you are clearly not interested in the facts despite the benefit that they could provide you by understanding your own biology.

I'm done.

[AnticorRifling]

I heard facts stay constant and science is never wrong and never changes its mind. That's why I'm keeping my humours in order and still leeching.

Common fucking sense....that's all that's needed here. Continued protection of the lowest and slowest of the herd will not serve us well, let fucktards be buried in piano boxes.

[Androidpk]

Continued protection of the lowest and slowest of the herd will not serve us well

Anticor wants death panels!

let fucktards be buried in piano boxes.

WTF is a piano box and why would you bury someone in it?

[Drunken Durfin]

So... you want a gene pool of chemistry majors? Have you ever met a chemistry major?Is this like saying...

You don't have to be a chemistry major to figure out what is making you fat, you just have to be in supreme denial or borderline mentally retarded (e.g. 350lb chick getting a super-sized DIET coke with her happy meal).

If you pull a C in 8th grade health class you know enough to figure it out.