18% tax on sugary drinks...

[SephYuyX]

I WANT A WORLD WHERE THERE IS NO CARBONATED BEVERAGES!

[guartz]

I know you sheeple dont like new ideas, so perhaps a illustration will help.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v7...z/cokezero.jpg

[fantasticdan]

For those who are saying real fruit juices like OJ have more sugar than Coca-Cola, you're correct. However, its the type of sugar that matters. Natural fruit sugars are not bad for you because they are immediately burned and turned into energy.

You realize they have the exact same simple sugars (fructose and glucose), both of which are 'natural fruit sugars right? Just a different ratio.

[Blarg]

Make it work like airline tickets. If you are a fat ass buying any of these drinks then you get taxed extra, and if you look in shape you pay the regular price and get a pat on the back for not being huge.

[Vuitton]

Vuitton, that's what we've been discussing - whether or not "source" of calories matters. Most of the studies focus on "glycemic index" - basically carbs vs. proteins vs. fats because of the fad diets. Studies on specifically cane sugar vs. HFCS in adults are very difficult - it's hard to keep people on strict diets where one is all cane and the other is all HFCS but have the same caloric content.

While I understand the "idea" of "one takes more energy to break down" - I haven't seen convincing evidence that this idea actually manifests itself in actual weight differences in people eating the same # of calories, just with different sugar sources. If you have something pointing in this direction - in the direction of actual obesity, I'd love to take a look at it.

HFCS doesn't technically take more energy to break down. It goes straight to fat and it stays there. It takes more energy to break down in the sense that the person has to actually physically exert themselves to the point that available energy is depleted and fat storage needs to be turned into energy to compensate.

Why High Fructose Corn Syrup Is Worse Than Sugar...And Why It's Not | Modern Forager

This is a good article that describes some of the chemistry involved with why HFCS goes into fat rather than available energy. It describes what is bad about HFCS, but it also discusses why its similar to other sugars. So it gives both perspectives on the issue.

I can't link you to any studies unfortunately. This is just something I learned in my anatomy and physiology class a few years ago. Its hard to find nonbiased studies.

All the pro-HFCS shit is from the corn industry and their lobbyists. All the anti-HFCS is from the nutritionists, ect. You have to realize that since almost everything in the USA and Canada uses HFCS (made from corn), that this whole "HFCS is bad!" campaign would really hurt them financially if it succeeded in banning HFCS, as companies would have to turn to other sources of sugars which leaves Big Corn out of the picture.

[archibaldcrane]

More research:

HFCS mainly comes in two forms in food - HFCS-42 (42% Fructose), which is used in baked goods, canned fruits, whatever, and HFCS-55 (55% Fructose), which is in drinks and ice cream. It's called "high fructose" because it has more fructose than normal corn syrup, not because the fructose level is outlandish.

In comparison, the sugar in Orange Juice is 30% fructose. It is also 30% sucrose, which is 1 part fructose and 1 part glucose. The remaining 40% is glucose.

So, in our 8 oz. glass example:

OJ = 29.5g of sugar. 30% fructose = 8.85g fructose, and another 4.425g fructose by way of 30% sucrose. Essentially 13.275g fructose total.
Coke = 26g of sugar. 55% fructose = 14.3g fructose, the rest being glucose.

Demonizing HFCS and then pointing to fruit juice as the answer is pretty absurd, considering Coke has effectively only 7.5%, or 1.005g more fructose per 8 oz. serving compared to orange juice.

[guartz]

well people don't usually drink 2 gallons of orange juice for a 2hr raid in caverns of time.

[Vuitton]

You realize they have the exact same simple sugars (fructose and glucose), both of which are 'natural fruit sugars right? Just a different ratio.

Why High Fructose Corn Syrup Is Worse Than Sugar...And Why It's Not | Modern Forager

Why It’s Worse Than You’ve Heard
Because of the way that high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is made, it’s sugar molecules are different than less highly processed sugars, including plain ol’ table sugar. In table sugar, the glucose and fructose molecules are paired in 1-to-1 fashion, bonded together. When sucrose enters the stomach, the glucose and fructose molecules are cleaved and sent on their way to either the bloodstream (for glucose) or to the liver (fructose).

HFCS on the other hand has unbound glucose and fructose molecules. These unbound sugars hit the bloodstream as reactive compounds known as carbonyls.

High Fructose Corn Syrup: Another Link in the Chain to Type 2 Diabetes - Diabetes Health

Reactive carbonyls, which have been linked to tissue damage and complications of diabetes, are elevated in the blood of people with diabetes. A single can of soda, however, has five times that concentration of reactive carbonyls. Old-fashioned table sugar, on the other hand, has no reactive carbonyls because its fructose and glucose molecules are “bound” and therefore stable, unlike the “unbound” molecules of HFCS.

Also:

Fructose and Weight Gain/Loss
While we know that we should watch how much sugar of all types we’re eating, too much fructose, in and of itself, is a bad thing. Fructose requires processing in the liver, as opposed to glucose which can pass directly into the bloodstream for energy or storage. The liver tends to turn fructose into triglycerides. But why does this matter? Too much fructose can lead to leptin resistance.

Fructose Sets Table For Weight Gain Without Warning

elevated triglycerides impair the transport of leptin across the blood brain barrier. The researchers hypothesize that the elevation in triglycerides produced by fructose prevented leptin from reaching the brain. If leptin does not reach the brain, the brain will not send out the signal to stop eating.

So we’re elevating triglycerides, a major risk factor for heart disease, which in turn keeps the brain from recognizing the “stop eating” signal. When the body stops responding to leptin, appetite runs rampant.

Further, fat storage is increased after fructose ingestion.

Limiting Fructose May Boost Weight Loss, Researcher Reports

The researchers found that lipogenesis, the process by which sugars are turned into body fat, increased significantly when as little as half the glucose was replaced with fructose. Fructose given at breakfast also changed the way the body handled the food eaten at lunch. After fructose consumption, the liver increased the storage of lunch fats that might have been used for other purposes.

So let’s put two and two together…first, too much fructose decreases the body’s response to leptin’s signal to stop eating. Second, fructose increases fat storage. So you eat more and the body stores more fat. Any wonder why the world is getting fatter?

I think it’s obvious that high-fructose corn syrup is some pretty insidious stuff. Contrary to what the Corn Refiners Association wants you to believe, it’s far from natural. The process to make HFCS is complicated and chemical-laden; cane or beet sugar production is slightly cleaner, mainly requiring boiling water, a lime bath, and a centrifuge. One could probably do that at home if desired. Agave nectar is produced in a similar way. Honey is the least processed, at least by human hands.

So yes, you're right that they use the same sugar molecules. However, they're still not the same due to how they're bound and processed.

[archibaldcrane]

Guartz, you haven't made a point yet that hasn't been made already. The thread's only 3 pages long, just read it.

[guartz]

Archibald have you heard of anything regarding HFCS and addiction?

or is that with all sugars?

or is it with all sugars, but HFCS has more of an impact?

[archibaldcrane]

Basically my point is that people want to eat their 3000+ calories a day and try to look for whatever science supports the idea that they are eating the right sources of calories.

The point is that you need to eat fewer calories if you don't want to be a fat fuck. Stop looking for end-arounds, they don't exist. By far the most obvious, demonstrable, and true metric for weight loss or gain is calories in vs. calories out.

[archibaldcrane]

No, I haven't read (or looked for any information) regarding sugar and addiction.

[guartz]

No, I haven't read (or looked for any information) regarding sugar and addiction.

Because if there is an addiction, it fits perfectly into a political scheme of things.

Take a addicting product, tax it.

[Vuitton]

Basically my point is that people want to eat their 3000+ calories a day and try to look for whatever science supports the idea that they are eating the right sources of calories.

The point is that you need to eat fewer calories if you don't want to be a fat fuck. Stop looking for end-arounds, they don't exist. By far the most obvious, demonstrable, and true metric for weight loss or gain is calories in vs. calories out.

Correct. Unless your metabolism is fast enough to burn 3000 calories in a day (Michael Phelps eats and burns like 12,000 or something), then yeah, you need to moderate.

Too much of anything is bad for you. Too much fructose is bad. Too much glucose is bad. Too much water is bad (it can kill you!) ect. ect.

Which is one reason why HFCS is bad! It prevents your brain from telling you to stop eating! Moderation killer!

[Vuitton]

Because if there is an addiction, it fits perfectly into a political scheme of things.

Take a addicting product, tax it.

Why was it politically favorable to remove cocaine from coca-cola then?

[fantasticdan]

So yes, you're right that they use the same sugar molecules. However, they're still not the same due to how they're bound and processed.

Where did I say the sugars were exactly the same, or that fructose is more healthy than glucose? I was just pointing out that this:

For those who are saying real fruit juices like OJ have more sugar than Coca-Cola, you're correct. However, its the type of sugar that matters. Natural fruit sugars are not bad for you because they are immediately burned and turned into energy.

Is completely false.

Most fruits contain more fructose than glucose, just like HFCS does. Many fruit juices contain more fructose than soda, apple juice for example. Orange juice, which is low fructose as far as fruits go, still has nearly as much fructose as soda after the sucrose is taken into account. To imply juice is more healthy than soda because of the sugars doesn't make any sense in any regard.

The only real reason to drink juice instead is that you're also getting vitamins and minerals, as opposed to just a glass of sugar water. But if you're really worried about your health, you should be eating most of your fruit, not drinking it.

[Seraph]

Because if there is an addiction, it fits perfectly into a political scheme of things.

Take a addicting product, tax it.

I think you could just make the case that humanity is addicted to food. The withdrawl is so bad you fucking die too.

[Vuitton]

Where did I say the sugars were exactly the same, or that fructose is more healthy than glucose? I was just pointing out that this:

Is completely false.

Most fruits contain more fructose than glucose, just like HFCS does. Many fruit juices contain more fructose than soda, apple juice for example. Orange juice, which is low fructose as far as fruits go, still has nearly as much fructose as soda after the sucrose is taken into account. To imply juice is more healthy than soda because of the sugars doesn't make any sense in any regard.

The only real reason to drink juice instead is that you're also getting vitamins and minerals, as opposed to just a glass of sugar water. But if you're really worried about your health, you should be eating most of your fruit, not drinking it.

I never said juice is healthier than soda. I just said HFCS is worse than natural occuring sugars.

Yeah, fruits have fructose and glucose. The fiber found in the fruit (not the juice) offset the fructose, leaving glucose in the bloodstream for energy.

If you're worried about fruit v. fruit juice, you should eat your fruits and not drink them. There is no fiber in fruit juice to offset the fructose. So yeah, its vitamin sugar water.

[Correction]

well people don't usually drink 2 gallons of orange juice for a 2hr raid in caverns of time.

I drink water during my raids. Or milk.

[fantasticdan]

I never said juice is healthier than soda. I just said HFCS is worse than natural occuring sugars.

You certainly implied it in the part I quoted. The sugars in HFCS are naturally occurring sugars, which are exactly the same ones in fruit and fruit juice, that's my point, it has nothing to do with what's natural and what's not.