Regulate sugar like booze: Scientists

Bad science! Bad!

HFCS is a mixture of glucose and fructose in their monosaccharide forms. In other words is a mixture of two non-identical molecules.

Sucrose is a disaccharide molecule that is composed of basically a fructose molecule and a glucose molecule bonded together.

The rest of your post about them being equivalent in health effects is probably true, but the science you stated is false in a big and important way.

That's all I had to say.

From what I've read, HFCS is loved by manufacturers because it's an effective preservative. Stuff with HFCS in it can last a really long time, therefore, increasing the shelf life of said product.

The problem though, is that it's also the last type of material your body gets rid of when losing fat. It's suppose to go straight to your gut (or hips and ass if you're a woman) and stay there....forever.

Studies have repeatedly shown that HFCS has fundamentally the same effect on the human body that sucrose (normal table sugar) does.

The problem is that people eat WAY TOO FUCKING MUCH of it. That problem would not go away at all if we replaced all HFCS with regular sucrose, because we'd still be eating WAY TOO FUCKING MUCH sugar.

Limit the fast food in poor neighborhoods? Here's an approximation of what would ensue when DaShaliqua doesn't get her Krystal Burger in a timely manner anymore:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bxROWjcGXI

I have grown quite accustomed to European food (among other exotic things that are regularly part of my diet...) over the years, and when I am in the States, now, I really don't even like the food much any more. Sweet things are great; Americans know how to make cakes, donuts, ice cream, and other such wonderfully-bad-for-you foods better than about anyone in the world. But spaghetti sauce with sugar in it? Canned vegetables with sugar included? Salad dressings with sugar in them? If you check the labels, you find that a huge amount of American foods contain sugar, including those that are not normally considered "sweet."

What's sad is that you can reduce the amount of sugar by a considerable margin (as well as the amount of salt, which is also extremely good for your health) and still eat things that taste just as good, if not better. It's just a question of getting used to it. And learning to taste food, instead of the sugar, salt, and other things that are added to it.

When I was young, I never knew what an egg tasted like, because I was mostly tasting salt. When I had to start eating without salt as much as possible (blood-pressure problems, kept entirely under control through regular exercise and low-salt eating), I discovered what eggs taste like. And learned to like them.

In the same way, it wasn't until I had been out of the States long enough to learn other ways of eating that I realized why so many American foods taste bland, and so much like so many other foods: They're all loaded with the same ingredient, sugar.

I love sugar. I'm a terrible junk-food junkie. But even I would rather keep it in things that are meant to be sweet.

Or we can pass out clean needles and straws, so we can abuse them safely.

Yeeeeeesssssssssss.....

I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me for emphasis or correcting me... because that's pretty much what I was trying to say!

I'd be fine with a junk food tax or, alternatively, just not subsidizing shit like corn so that HFC becomes 1/10th the price of healthier food. If people really want the sugar then they'll still pay for it when its price is at it's true market rate once subsidies have ended. I suspect most people eat so much junk food mainly because it's the cheapest and easiest option due to very large government subsidies. End the subsidies, let the real market price be reflected, and then see if people eat so much of it.

End subsidies - yes.
Sin taxes - hell motherfucking no.

Chemistry is allowed in the Red Room.

Let's not devolve to any math though.

I like a woman that's had some high fructose corn syrup.

Not too much though.

Fuck em.

Also, this is political junk science.

I grew up with many dishes that contained virtually no sugar (everything except cakes) and few dishes that contained a high amount of sugar (cakes).

Only later I found out about the American cuisine.

I still don't understand why you would want to add sugar to non-sweet dishes. My spaghetti sauce, to this day, basically consists of tomatoes, garlic and spices.

Looks to me like the health care industry is lobbying again.

I feel safer already knowing the health Nazis are watching out for me!

Now that's good eatin'. Don't put sweets (real sugar or chemical substitutes) in dishes that don't call for sweetness.

If they limit fast food restaurants in poor neighborhoods, that just means the poor will have to burn more gas getting to the fast food. Plus, it will kill jobs for people in the poor neighborhoods.
Another question. Has it actually been proven that food in sit down restaurants is healthier than fast food? They force fast food to actually list calories and stuff. Do they do that with all the sit down restaurants?

Thank you!

Fixed now.

Looks like I'll be going into the sugar business as soon as this passes.

Put an actual BARN DOOR on The Golden Corral "all you can eat".
If they can't fit through, they can't be served! This should curtail about 95 percent of their business right there!

I buy no sugar added spaghettie sauce at the store - Hunts, in a can. It's $1.00 a can, and it is a lot healthier. We ad spices to taste and then have low carb pasta with it.

A truly lovely meal.

Not quite. Sucrose and regular corn syrup are 50% fructose, 50% glucose. HFCS is 55% fructose, 45% glucose.

Their health effects of HFCS are not equivalent, but rather similar to eating 5% more sucrose. Glucose doesn't really matter much - any cell in the body can use it for energy. But fructose has to be processed in the liver, and there are side effects of that - fatty buildups in the liver. This applies to all fructose though, not just HFCS.

That's sort of missing the point.

actormike said that they are chemically the same. They are not.

One is a mixture of fructose molecules and glucose molecules and one is a compound.

Remember: perfection is only a regulation away...

And I made a cake for Xmas that had 3-1/2 cups of sugar, 2 bars of butter, 1-1/2 cups of cocoa with some flour. The icing had 2 cups of sugar, a bar of cream cheese, a bar of butter, and 1/2 cup of cocoa.

It would be a crime to make such a cake a crime.

It isn't the FOOD the people are eating that should concern us. What should concern us is WHICH PEOPLE should be allowed to eat food, and WHICH PEOPLE should not be allowed to eat food, or be born for that matter. Hitler may have soiled Eugenics a bit by signing off on Himmler's program, but it was the one thing Hitler was SPOT ON about. Can you imagine? A society where people are born into groups to perform a certain category of tasks, IQ levels, genetic manipulations that will lead to the downsize, or elimination of mental and physical genetic ailments like Depression or Hypertension, and the upsizing of positive genetic capacity. We CAN have that society by design. We have successfully altered every species we use eugenically to perform their function better, but have yet to employ this method on ourselves. It is true there is no such thing as perfect, but we should strive as a people to attain as much of it as possible.

OH, IF I WAS HEAD GEEK IN CHARGE, THEY'D COME OUT LOOKING MORE LIKE THIS:

Maud is afraid they're going to take away his junk food.

I blame cartoons!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9nE2spOw_o