[Don W]

I personally think you’re out of your mind regarding sucrose v HFCS.

To put it simply: the human race has consumed sugar (sucrose) for literally THOUSANDS of years, with only a few unfortunate souls being subject to the ravages of diabetes.

Now, today, we have literally millions of children who are insulin dependant. There are millions of adults who have DEVELOPED insulin dependant diabetes SINCE the advent of HFCS as the primary sweetener in commercial food products.

I think that it is in the HFCS supporter’s court to show that there really is NO correlation between its product and our sugar related difficulties, since NONE of them were evident until HFCS took over from cane/beet sugar (sucrose).

[VanShuyten]

Humans actually haven't consumed more than negligible amounts of raw sugar until the large, European-owned, slave-worked, sugar plantations of the 17th, 18th, and 19th century.

[matthew fuller]

"I think that it is in the HFCS supporter’s court to show that there really is NO correlation between its product and our sugar related difficulties, since NONE of them were evident until HFCS took over from cane/beet sugar (sucrose). "

Are you saying that there were no evidence of diabetes before HFCS? Thats the way I read your statement above.

[Nathan Zachary]

To put it simply: the human race has consumed sugar (sucrose) for literally THOUSANDS of years, with only a few unfortunate souls being subject to the ravages of diabetes."

Uh, no. The consumed natural sugars (fructose), mostly from fruits. Cane sugar (sucrose) is a relatively "new" development which came along with sugar cane plantations. That's when problems began.

[Nathan Zachary]

"Now, today, we have literally millions of children who are insulin dependant. There are millions of adults who have DEVELOPED insulin dependant diabetes SINCE the advent of HFCS as the primary sweetener in commercial food products."

No, since the development of white table sugar. The mother of all posion. (white death) Pure (crystaline)Fructose is actually much better for you.

Crystalline fructose and high-fructose corn syrup are often mistakenly confused as the same product. The former is simply pure (100%) fructose. The latter is composed of nearly equal amounts of fructose and glucose (cane sugar). Crystalline fructose is held to offer many unique benefits such as improved product texture, taste and stability. Specifically, when combined with other sweeteners and starches, crystalline fructose is said to boost cake height (in baked goods) and mouth-feel of foods and beverages and to produce a pleasing brown surface color and pleasant aroma when baking.

Fructose (crystalline) is often recommended for, and consumed by, people with diabetes mellitus or hyperglycemia, because it does not raise blood glucose or insulin concentrations since it is metabolized without the need of insulin.

crystalline fructose can also be made from corn. It is the sugar that remains after the starches extracted from the corn are converted. It's used a lot in beer and whiskey brewing.

[djf]

He must be eating too much HFCS and not enough glucose to come to that conclusion.

There is one - ONE - single fuel that brains cells need.

Glucose.

http://www.fi.edu/learn/brain/carbs.html

[TheBattman]

Of course, we cannot leave out the fact that people consume FAR more sugar than they did even a few decades ago, and the quantity continues to grow - with or with out HFCS.

And I am not trying to discount what I believe are real additional risks and dangers of HFCS. If anything, HFCS has made the use of sweeteners more prevalent because of convenience.

[kenth]

I’m not necessarily convinced either way.

Is is HFCS, or is it that the sweetener has become so prevalent in every food imaginable that we consume so much more? I’m sure in history, sweeteners were not so readily available that they were in just about every processed food. Which makes me think that’s the real problem - processed food. It’s cheap and far too easy to pick up something processed, compared to preparing a regular meal. It makes it easy to eat all the time, instead of eating for nutrition for the day’s work.

HFCS may be a culprit, but it may be more due to it’s availability as a sweetener than the makeup of the sweetener itself.

[Mr. Jeeves]

I think there is something more going on with HFCS than can be explained by chemistry. It's almost as if the body reacts to two tablespoons of the stuff as if you had actually eaten the twenty ears of corn needed to make it. Cane sugar doesn't seem to lead to the same drastic weight gain, though doubtless it would be better to give up all refined sugars.

You'll never convince an armchair chemist, but the results of mass HFCS consumption over the last three decades are hard to argue with.

[bitterohiogunclinger]

“I think that it is in the HFCS supporter’s court to show that there really is NO correlation between its product and our sugar related difficulties, since NONE of them were evident until HFCS took over from cane/beet sugar (sucrose)”
I guess there were no diabetics before the invention of HFCS?
Bullsh*t.
The predominant scientific theory is that juvenile diabetes predominately results from viral attack of the pancreas. Many forms of adult onset diabetes are brought on by obesity, that is true, but there is much more contributing to obesity than a single dietary ingredient. Primarily, the eating habits of our society have changed greatly since the 1960’s, with the higher consumption of convenience foods and incredible amount of highly processed foods. White bread, white sugar, two dozen unpronounceable preservatives, colorings and flavor enhancers. Every single item has been demonized at one time or the other with little scientific scrutiny. The overall picture being missed is, we are eating more junk food, and spending too much time being lazy.