HFC syrup; AND Whole Wheat Bread

[Lost Dog]

I'm in the middle somewhere.

1. I do believe that HFCS is worse for you than sugar, merely because it doesn't promote a feeling of satiety like sugar does. In products that are rich with either sugar or HFCS, one can injest more of an HFCS sweetened product without feeling full or satisfied. This can be a problem with soda, punch, candy, and other treats. People might have two when they would've had one in the "oldin days."

2. In products where they are used in small amounts, like bread, light yogurt, pasta sauce, etc. I don't really think they are a problem. It comes down to something like a pinch of sugar. A pinch of sugar does not promote a feeling of satiety, so replacing it with HFCS isn't a problem.

HCFS doesn't do anything to you that other sugars do, except not promote satiety.

I AM rather surprised that so many natural foods products contain HCFS, especially when the product uses so little of it. The savings from the use of HFCS must come from not having to have sugar in the factory or something. Since a pinch of sugar in a loaf of bread would cost next to nothing, how much could they possibly save by using HFCS instead?

[Anubis]

The thing with HFCS as opposed to other sugars is that fructose does not create the response of insulin like the others do. Therefore this sugar isn't being carried into body cells. I hear fructose is also a terrible pre and post workout carb.

So I wouldn't have a problem with them using other sugars to replace HFCS so long as my body used it efficiently.

OG-

I have no excuse for not reading the entire nutrtional label to boot. I think at the time I first started buying it, I was more concerned that it was made with 'Whole Grains' and not bleached, ground white bread.

[OldGuy]

Since a pinch of sugar in a loaf of bread would cost next to nothing, how much could they possibly save by using HFCS instead?

Multiply it by a few million loaves and I think it would be significant cost savings.

The thing with HFCS as opposed to other sugars is that fructose does not create the response of insulin like the others do. Therefore this sugar isn't being carried into body cells. I hear fructose is also a terrible pre and post workout carb.

Are you eating the bread post workout?

[Anubis]

Old Guy,

No I don't use bread for PWO. I just thought that little bit of knowledge fit into the topic since you were saying it is better or no different than using any other kind of sugar in place of it. I'd rather it be another kind of sugar, one my body is going to use.

And even if it's not in conjunction with a PWO or Pre-workout meal, it's still important that the sugar we consume be utilized by insulin and our cells. I don't want my serum fructose level to skyrocket.
(and I'm not talking about a pinch of HFCS in bread) I'm referring to HFCS in just about every food out there.

OldGuy said:
HFCS, as with anything, is not "bad" for you when used in moderation.
-------------------------------------------------
I completely agree with you. My argument is that it is in almost everything edible, so it's hard to keep it to 'moderation'.

[GqArtguy]

Originally posted by Anubis:
The thing with HFCS as opposed to other sugars is that fructose does not create the response of insulin like the others do.

There was a long thread on this point.

Therefore this sugar isn't being carried into body cells.

Then where does it go?

I hear fructose is also a terrible pre and post workout carb.

Again, this has been covered. My friend told me his bro can bench 455 raw for 20, thats just what Ive heard

So I wouldn't have a problem with them using other sugars to replace HFCS so long as my body used it efficiently.

Your body is smarter than you. What its doing and you think or heard its doing is very different.

Your point would be valid if 70% of the food in our grocery stores didn’t contain HFCS.

The big problem is not HFCS itself, it’s all the things that contain it. When I eat pasta, salad, or meat I don’t think to myself “Man, this would be a lot better with a few scoops of sugar!”.

Eating in moderation is key OldGuy, but when HFCS is found in things like breads, fruits, yogurts, marinates, dressings, juices, meats, health foods, and everything else, your consuming a diet rich in HFCS. The sad thing is, most people don’t realize what HFCS is, they buy things that are advertised as being “healthy” that are full of it and wonder why they are not loosing weight.

Again, so you think youd be better off with replacing all of this HFCS with regular sugar?

Furthermore, if HFCS is such a hot product, why can’t I go to the grocery store and buy a bottle of the stuff to cook with? Truth be told, the companies that manufacture this crap know that going retail will expose the unhealthy truth. Going retail would cost them millions in sales and eventually lead to revenue loss.

Hsve you ever thought that it is so cheap that it may be unprofitable to sell because youd have to buy it very large quantities? Have you ever thought about the difficulty in competing markets such as sugar?

When’s the last time you want to the public swimming pool and looked at the children running around, IT’S SICK, kids are fat as hell, to be honest it’s hard to come across a kid that’s not fat anymore. Pickup any kids snack and it’s sure to contain HFCS, we got to draw the line somewhere, something eventually needs to be done.

So youre saying that HFCS is to blame for the inactivity in children?

[Anubis]

I'm just saying I'd like to cut out as much HFCS in my diet (be that bread) as I can. I found a link that has some pretty interesting facts relating HFCS to reduced insulin sensitivity, Diabetes, Obesity..

-------------------------------------------------

In a 2004 study, Gross et al examined nutrient consumption in the United States between 1909 and 1997, and discovered there was a significant correlation in the prevalence of diabetes with fat, carbohydrate, corn syrup, and total energy intakes. Most striking was the fact that when total energy intake was accounted for, corn syrup was positively associated with type 2 diabetes, while protein and fat were not [32]. High fructose corn syrups (HFCS) are quite commonly found in soft drinks and juice beverages, and are incorporated into many convenient pre-packaged foods, such as breakfast cereals and baked goods. Fructose consumption has thus largely increased over the past few decades most likely as a result of this increased use of HFCS, which contains between 55–90% fructose. The use of HFCS has increased an alarming 1000% between 1970 and 1990 [33]. In 1970, individual consumption of fructose was only 0.5 lb/year. However, in 1997, this figure rose to an alarming 62.4 lb/year [34]. The type of common, general use sweeteners represent as large an impact as the dramatic increase in the use of these caloric sweeteners. Between 1909 and 1997, sweetener use increased by 86%; and specifically, corn syrup sweeteners now represent over 20% of total daily carbohydrate intake, at an increase of 2100%

Fructose is readily absorbed and rapidly metabolized by human liver. For thousands of years humans consumed fructose amounting to 16–20 grams per day, largely from fresh fruits. Westernization of diets has resulted in significant increases in added fructose, leading to typical daily consumptions amounting to 85–100 grams of fructose per day. The exposure of the liver to such large quantities of fructose leads to rapid stimulation of lipogenesis and TG accumulation, which in turn contributes to reduced insulin sensitivity and hepatic insulin resistance/glucose intolerance.

SOURCE

[Axis]

Here's a question for you. Cargill produces two varieties of HFCS. One has 42% fructose, the other 55% fructose. Both are used widely in the food and beverage industry.

If poor insulin response to fructose is the reason that HFCS is bad, wouldn't the HFCS42 be better than normal table sugar, which is 50% fructose?

[Anubis]

I never suggested table sugar as a viable alternative to HFCS.

Reduced insulin response leads to diabetes, diabetes leads to peripheral neuropathy, peripheral neuropathy leads to stasis ulcers and infection, which in turn leads to amputation, amputation leads to lowered self esteem and quality of life.

I'd say that is reason enough for me to try and keep my average intake of fructose to a managable level.

[Lost Dog]

Originally posted by Anubis:
For thousands of years humans consumed fructose amounting to 16–20 grams per day, largely from fresh fruits. Westernization of diets has resulted in significant increases in added fructose, leading to typical daily consumptions amounting to 85–100 grams of fructose per day.

For thousands of years, humans consumed 16-20 grams of ANY sugar per day. While fructose may be a bigger problem than other sugars, I'd say that injesting 85-100g of sugar, per day, is likely a bigger issue.

I will agree that we should limit HFCS, but merely shifting from one sugar to another doesn't help that much except in items that are very rich in sugar calories.

A lot of the "health foods" in the store are choc full of honey and sweetened by fruit and fruit juice and concentrated fruit juice. These are full of fructuse as well.

[DartFrog]

the links I posted earlier give a lot of information about the effects, how they work, and many studies that have been done to scientifically prove these points.

Yes, in moderation HFCS is not a problem. I am also aware that I am getting more in my diet daily than I know about. Therefore I CAN keep my intake low by removing the HFCS that I do know about.

It's just the more relaxed I let myself feel or think about it, the more relaxed I will end up being about consuming it, until I am consuming more than an acceptable amount.

This is besides the American Consumer point of view, which we obviously are not going to all agree on and that's ok.

[GqArtguy]

.