So, yeah, probably why it works better.
No, for the punchline ~ did you know that over half the faculty at Princeton have an excuse for why they think Communism actually works!
Thanks for the post.
I have also read that ingestion of high-fructose corn syrup does not shut of the brain’s hunger stimulus system. In other words, when you think you are hungry and go eat something with the HFCS, you may have consumed enough calories that would normally satisfy the craving, but the receptors don’t pick up the HFCS, so you want to keep eating.
I guess when I want a non-diet soda I’ll drink Mexican coca cola. It’s sweetened with cane sugar.
bookmark
Down on the farm we use corn to fatten up hogs and cattle I could have saved those brainiacs at Princeton a bundle figuring out the correlation ...
HFCS is definitely different, and anyone trying to claim that it’s the same as dissolved cane sugar, I’ll just ask them this: Can you make crystalline sugar (sucrose) starting with HFCS as the primary ingredient? If no, then it’s not the same.
Additionally, the industrial processes involved in making HFCS cause the production of agents which produce carcinogens. I don’t recall now, but I believe carbolic acid to be one of them.
Well, this is obvious. High fructose corn syrup is actually unhealthy.
Pepsi is currently marketing the version of Pepsi that is made with actual sugar and not syrup. Try one with sugar. Then try one with syrup. Then try to come back and tell me that HFC is still healthy to eat.
Not that I don’t believe food producers shouldn’t have the right to use it but I do believe it should have the same kind of warning label as products that contain olestra have.
High f corn s bump
Whenever there is an obesity post on FR, we get responses saying a calorie is a calorie is a calorie.
This study seems to contradict that.
I really have no idea. If I did I suppose I’d be nice and slender.
So, instead of allowing manufacturers to phase out HFCS because of the consumers inevitable cry to not eat HFCS - there will be a panel - an edict - a fine and a tax to rid HFCS from all corners of the earth. Just like Trans Fats.
Let the market sway with these studies
There’s a new one every week.....
Fickle Scientific Studies SideNote:
Back in the late 80’s and early 90’s there were studies after studies on the wonders of Bran - manufacturers jumped at the news and shifted their ingredients and marketing to tout Bran in just about every item they could adjust to add the magical Bran. Then the studies came out that it wasn’t so important and they moved onto another study. You can’t find Bran items anymore, except for ‘AllBran’
AFAIK, US big sugar (sucrose) is a protected industry. The commodity costs nearly double the world price. In comparison, here in Canada, sugar is priced at world market prices.
If the above is true, it’s no wonder that large U.S. food processors have substituted HFCS for sucrose, wherever they could.
I wonder why these studies weren’t run *before* HFCS was added to almost every processed food.
Fortunately passover is soon so the Kosher for Passover coke/pepsi doesn’t have HFCS. (corn isn’t acceptable for passover for many Jews)
Do I need to point out that sugar tariffs are why sugar costs so much in this country? Pretty much every other country uses sugar, not high-fructose corn syrup.
Your government at work. They just want to protect you. And when that fails, they’ll pass another law to protect you from the adverse effects of the last law (which happen to be more severe than the adverse effects from which you were being “protected”).
And on and on and on.
I wish they’d do a study on ethanol.
A local snowmobile rental place lost 6 machines in one weekend to this stuff. Of course the renter had to pay.
Many more stories of marine motors lawn mowers etc.
Of course the research material will be held to the same high standards as those of East Anglia University. ..... /sarc
The amount of kilocalories expended in physical activity plus the amount expended in resting metabolic rate (including futile cycle) plus the amount expended in the thermic effect of a meal (TEM) plus the amount of energy put into storage either as glycogen or fat must equal energy intake to maintain weight or exceed it to lose body weight. The only way that the rats could gain fat when fed exactly the same kilocalories as other rats that had no weight gain would be for the HFC to cause them to perform the same amount of physical activity with much less energy use or to cause them to reduce their overall level of physical activity or to significantly reduce their resting metabolic rate or futile cycle for generating body heat from brown fat. Although rats, like other animals and unlike man, may be capable of de novo lipogenesis from carbohydrates, they cannot gain fat with no change in their kilocalorie intake unless they have a corresponding reduction of caloric expenditure.