This is the type of stuff the government want for its people, you think a government that protects and serves the people that gives them life(tax) would want to harm them, the only people willing to die for the government in order to protect them(in a dream world that is) because they protect the people? Down with the government that is give us the people poison! If you disagree just blow your brains out right now! WE NEED A FN REVOLUTION TO OVER THROW THESE PEOPLE KILLING US NOW!!!!!!!!!!!
Stop it with the insulting "sheeple" crap. Shit, why does everything related to anti-government have to come with it? It makes me feel like I'm watching an underground cultist brain scrubbing program. Brilliant information aside, people who aren't aware of what our government is doing to people are bound to not take this information seriously because of the sheep bleating at the end. Insulting the intelligence of people is going to repel them. I'm fully informed, and I find it a disgrace.
The poison's in the dose. Every breath of air you take has plutonium in it from atomic bomb tests 50 years ago. The worst thing about high fructose corn syrup is that it has high fructose corn syrup in it.
End High Fructose Corn Syrup, artificially fluoridated (poison) water, MSG and hydrolyzed proteins and food, Aspartame in all foods, Fluoride in toothpaste and foods, and thimerosal.
So they show some other website's page and a bunch of other ''propaganda'' out there telling all of you this.. and yet none of you can say that you've done the experiments on your own with your own testing equipment and machines?? You make me laugh so hard.. I'm still alive and kickin.. and still smart as hell.. stop whining and go outside already and enjoy your Lives instead of searching for bs, because this is all you will find.. shit to make you satisfied..
Eat natural food. If you can, grow your own vegetables. Buy fresh vegetables and fruit. Also, get a good juicer to extract the juices out of vegetables and stuff so you would get a balance Alkaline intake versus acid stuff like processed food.
Fat ugly violent sick sad evil AMERICANS --Yum It tastes sweet - yum yum - eat more- Stay home - we don't want you or your money--stay in America & be pro-war pro-Gun pro-Atomic weapons- pro-killer drone aircraft-- & pro LIFE -The God hopless wankers of this planet.
There are no known risks associated with vaccinations.
We support the work of the pharmaceutical industry and invest heavily in their research.
There's NO conclusive evidence that vaccines at birth cause Autism.
Get your annual vaccinations and keep yourself up-to-date to boost your child's immune system to prevent Autism.
We support the Center for Disease Control, World Health Organization, the FDA, DHS and the Obama Administration's efforts to mass vaccinate the world to save billions of lives
@ddnguyen278 Well, the excess of corn is not really an excess at all... It's a direct result from the govt. subsidizing corn farmers (through the aid of corporate lobbying). Now it's the only profitable crop for the small time farmer and it has led to the monopolization of the food industry by corn.
@iamgoombaalt how old are you ??? the stuff has only been on the market for like 15 years give or take a year or 2. and if youve been eating it since the day you were born how would you know what normal feels like ????? think about what im saying
@catrapesdog99 I'm actually 15, I do have aspergers syndrome but I'm not like an outcast of society, I'm not like those fucking annoying aspies who never fit in with everyone else and become lonely their whole life, I can just be awkward in some situations or clumsy, and sometime I can be cloudy in the head, but I still overall have a pretty normal life, and I doubt that it would be caused by an ingredient in some food.
@iamgoombaalt I did it and I thought it would be terrible. Actually went though withdrawl if you can believe that, I used to only drink mountain dew. But after a while I felt better than ever before.
Actually, cheaper HFCS's are being imported from China which still uses mercury in the process. You do not know which products with HFCS is safe and which are contaminated with mercury. Don't play Russian roulette when there are better choices out there, especially with your children's health. It's a no brainer.
YES!!!! From the time this commercial first came on I was like, that is not true so I looked up information on HFCS! I can not wait to push play and see what someone has to say about that commercial. I already knew that HFCS is cheap and more industries use it as an additive so the reason for the Commercial is obvious.
This is sickening. And I can't believe there are people defending HFCS and its derivatives at this point. You think Monsanto would make it apparent to kill people through a large dose of Hg in foods and risk getting sued? It's less profitable and less efficient. You buy out the people on a gradual scale w/ just the right amount of Hg to kill them slowly and profitably. STUPID AMERICANS CAN"T EVEN COMPREHEND THIS SIMPLE FACT! DUMB FUCKS.
I don't think you should be calling anyone names! There is more than enough research to prove the pure evil of HFCS! It's not worth arguing with someone who thinks it's good for you.
People participating in this sort of advert should be kicked in their asses. I hope there will come a day when people take responsibility for what they are doing beyond the what-should-i-do-its-my-job argument.
healthfulness and safety of an unnatural and inadequately tested product.
"Do tell what other than how HFCS is metabolized matters."
Well, for starters, there's the documented fact that up to half our supply of HFCS may be contaminated with mercury at any one time.. and the indications that HFCS could be linked with a higher risk of diabetes. You may say that there's no compelling evidence for this, but that's only illustrating the point that this question needs to be thoroughly examined.
the highest level recorded was 0.57 ug/g, Fewer than half the samples had any detected and most were significantly lower. Now compare that to albacore tuna at an average of 52.7 ug/g. Fact is that the numbers are insignificant, and that the results have not been repeatable. Meanwhile it remains that the caustic soda expected as the source is also used in the production of plain table sugar. Further this is a CONTAMINANT, not part of the normal product.
The majority? So if a substance contains a majority of something natural, you give it the "thumbs up"? So a barrel of toxic waste that is PRIMARILY filled with spring water is A-okay in your book. Yeah, not smart.
No those processes are not just as "invented" as HFCS, as the end result is merely a natural substance extracted, rather than an unnatural substance created. Extracting a natural substance from a plant is not the same as CREATING a substance in a laboratory.
Sucrose is broken down into glucose and fructose in a water solution by your body, so yes HFCS is created naturally, The only difference is that we figured out a way to make it measure it and use it in a practical way.
Speaking of deflections.. You've met one of the criteria in your explanation.. the body may break down sucrose, in the same manner that the MAKERS of HFCS do, but you've failed to meet the other criteria.. namely, that of it being FOOD. In other words, many things are extracted from animals and plants and consumed as food. Fats, sugars, carbohydrates, proteins, etc.. but your example is only of the fundamental processes involved in the making of HFCS, and not of it both OCCURRING in nature
FOOD SOURCE, genius. Do you know what that means? Did you pass 9th grade biology? Once the food has been ingested it is then transformed into other, entirely different substances. So you're equating a high intake of table sugar with a high intake of moonshine? Just when I thought this couldn't get any more ridiculous.
So you don't think there are food sources with glucose and fructose in them? You don't think you ever eat that mixture?
Yes, I am equating high table sugar intake with moonshine intake.
All substances are dangerous at a certain dose. And I am still curious as to how you think HFCS is metabolized differently than any other solution of glucose and fructose by your body.
No, I do think there are food sources with glucose and fructose in them. The question is how on earth you could be so ridiculously stupid as to actually assert that there are food sources with HFCS in it. I like how you QUALIFY your description of table sugar intake with the word "high" but don't do the same for moonshine. Administered in equal amounts, anyone but an imbecile would agree that table sugar would be MUCH less harmful than a corresponding amount of moonshine.
There are millions of food sources with HFCS in them.
Dose is not a "qualification". It is a fact. If I gave you more than the requisite dose of water it would kill you as well.
Now compare HFCS doses to Sucrose. You have yet to show how a solution of glucose and fructose (HFCS) is metabolized differently than a sucrose solution.
Has it occurred to you that there is more to consider then simply whether or not HFCS is metabolized similarly to other sugars? Doesn't seem like it. Correct, dose "is a fact." And the fact is that you qualified your statement by metioning a "high" dosage of table sugar, but only mentioning moonshine, and not mentioning any specific dosage. This was my point, which you seem to be ether too dumb or too stubborn to acknowledge. There are millions of FOODS with HFCS, not millions of food
Do tell what other than how HFCS is metabolized matters. I can't WAIT to hear this one.
Are you going to say it hurts the environment? The Economy? what?
Your point on my use of an adjective in this forum where we are limited in how much can be written shows just how far you will go to deflect from the fact that you have established no valid scientific reason for HFCS being treated differently than sucrose.
The fact that it is an invented substance contaminated with mercury with inadequate testing, and possible links to increased risks for disease is good for starters.
Your attempt to hide behind the 500 character limit to defend your lame 2 word response is entirely indicative of why I don't like you, or your cheap defense of HFCS. You're very good at trying to spin things, I'll give you that. But you're completely wrong. Stop asking me to do your research for you. You'll have to ask the
Deflect deflect deflect. I have asked you multiple times to prove how a suspension of glucose and fructose is different for your body than a suspension of sucrose which is broken down in to what: glucose and fructose so that your cells can use it. You refuse to answer and then produce the lame mercury claim. Contamination has no bearing on whether HFCS is a safe product since contamination means something is in there that should not be part of the product when it is made.
And I've told you multiple times that it's the arificial enzymatic processing that is performed that makes it different. The only deflection here is your unwillingness to admit that the burden of proof is yours, as you are the one supporting an unnatural substance unknown to the world just 50 years ago. The contamination is chronic, and it persists to this day. It is also indicative the poor standards involved in producing the cheap sugar substitute. Why is HFCS generally recognized, even by
No, the burden of proof is on you to show that it is used by your body in a way that is any more detrimental than regular table sugar. You have not provided that proof. Safety is shown by a lack of harm, that cannot be proven absolutely as it is a negative. You have to substantiate the claim that it is NOT safe through some positive correlation. You have not.
You still don't seem to understand that the burden of proof is entirely yours. You are the one defending the introduction of a new product into the human diet, therefore, since you're the one with something to sell, you're the one who needs to do the selling. In other words, the "tests" necessary to prove the acceptability of natural sugars in our diets have already been performed, each and every time someone eats a fruit or vegetable. Those same "tests" however, have only just begun for HFCS
and honestly, it's not off to too great a start. Since the chemical has become ubiquitous in our diets, which occurred sometime in the early 70's, it is suspected of being the main culprit behind several chronic diseases plaguing the country, like obesity, diabetes, metabolic syndrome, and insulin resistance syndrome.
Its been in the diet for over 30 years and no ones died of mercury poisoning from it. You have yet to establish how it is biologically handled differently than any other sugar. Until you do that you have no argument and the burdens on you. All of the things you mention are linked to a large number of things in our diet and health including the uptake of ALL sugar and a general lack of exercise. You have not given one study proving a specific detrimental effect conspicuous to HFCS v. table sugar.
You are woefully ignorant of both science and common sense. Mercury poisoning is cumulative. Oftentimes someone with extreme levels of mercury in their system will have come into contact with it from multiple sources, so the simple fact that no one has specifically suffered a death literally attributable to the mercury contained in HFCS that they consumed is not very significant in terms of evaluating the safety of the chemical, and you should know this. Or you do know this and you're
Yes, organic Hg is cumulative, and once again you get at minimum 7.25 times more from tuna than HFCS. Do you not even realize that the things you say are supporting my arguments?
Do you know how much Hg is in the air you breathe? Do you know what the EPA standard for DAILY exposure is?
You're like a broken record of stupidity. You've failed to acknowledge the obvious fact that using 'average' statistics hides the fact that Tuna is not part of many peoples' diets, whereas HFCS is a part of everyone's diet, to one degree or another. I hope you realize what a 9 year old you come across as, when you blatantly ignore points I make, and cherrypick the ones you feel more comfortable responding to. It's like arguing with Bill O'reilly.
Do you understand why your Tuna comparison is not valid? Allow me to patiently try yet ANOTHER way to communicate this to you. Go to a grocery store. Ask 50 people whether they eat Tuna. It's highly probable the a significant portion of those people will answer in the negative. Now ask 50 more people whether or not they eat products containing HFCS. It's guaranteed that all 50 will say yes, and whoever doesn't, it's highly likely that they're simply mistaken and some amount of HFCS is part
You do not seem to understand that what this means is the average is VERY representative for HFCS, meaning that the level of exposure is inconsequential.
Of course you are still ignoring the ENORMOUS number of people who have very little if any sugar intake due to diabetes.
I am not cherry picking anything. I am responding to all of your idiocies. YOu on the other hand STILL have not even tried to present something showing that HFCS has a metabolically detrimental effect.
of their diet. It's not difficult to understand. You're comparing an all-but-ubiquitous product to a product only consumed by a certain portion of the population. While you're correct that if one were to literally consume as much Tuna, by weight, as they do HFCS, then they'd be much more poisoned with mercury. But as (hopefully) you get by now, this fact is meaningless. You seem handy with facts, maybe you know this one: What percentage of the population consumes tuna fish? Don't hide
According to the mercury policy project, 90% of american households consume canned tuna. There goes another of your arguments down the tubes. Tuna IS ubiquitous to the average american's diet.
I did not say that people consumed the same amounts of both either. I gave the annual mean amount of consumption for both by the kilo.
Tuna is ubiquitous? Are you being serious? The issue isn't fructose or glucose but the precise substance of HFCS, which, as you admitted yourself, is produces during the human digestive process.
Now apparently you do not know the meaning of words that you use. Good Job. Ubiquitous: constantly encountered. Do you think consumption by 90% of households and its presence in every single grocery store and most menus makes it not so?
HFCS is NOT a precise substance. It is three different substances idiot, and they are suspensions of certain ratios of glucose and fructose. The issue IS ENTIRELY that of fructose and glucose, because as has been shown anything else is a CONTAMINANT.
I think that your lame attempt to hide behind your bullshit statistic is indicative of the cheap type of argument you continually try to make. The fact that 90% of households consume tuna and one time or another doesn't mean much, as the critical aspect is the comparison of amounts consumed. In other words, a family could have one household member who might eat tuna five or six times per year, and according to your dubious statistic, that household would be included in your 90%. Also, you're
eating tuna 5 times a year would STILL BE 3 TIMES MORE MERCURY exposure. Damn you are thick. So to equate that a person would have to at minimum eat 78 kg of HFCS per year.
There are all kinds of factors and variables that could play a role. Not to mention that without honest and adequate research done regarding the safety of HFCS, your estimates regarding the extent of contamination remain preliminary.
misusing the statistic like the weasel you are, since the statistic was meant to portray tuna consumption independent of the comparison to HFCS, which was made by you. I'm amused by the fact that you need to force a conversation about comparisons to tuna fish in order to defend your ridiculous standpoint
What statistic am I misusing? The stat about average consumption of tuna?
There is nothing ridiculous about my standpoint. The clarity from the stats is that the Hg from HFCS is not of a level that is threatening in any way shape or form.
Your desperate insistence on discussing tuna fish rather than HFCS, which is what you're so adamantly defending, is extremely telling. I've already explained how the statistics you've cited don't prove your dubious point. And after all, what does it say about HFCS, when one of the most common comparisons its proponents make, is to a known-to-be-toxic food like tuna?
Your desperate attempts to deflect from your lousy comprehension of statistics and vocabulary is telling.
The point was on the levels of hg in common food sources and how inconsequential HFCS' input is relative to that from other sources. Entirely relevant when your claim is that the contamination is a reason HFCS is "bad".
Fact is that there is ample evidence for Hg contamination to be expected in every part of our food chain due to environmental contamination.
You're still missing the point that the risk is amplified and much more prevalent in HFCS due to its ubiquitous nature. Y'know, that same ubiquitous nature you equated with that of tuna fish? Yeah, cuz I can't remember the last time I could find bread with out tuna used as a sugar substitute. Or the last time I saw soda without tuna in it.. Or pasta sauce, or cereal.. Oh, wait.. actually no. Tuna can be found pretty much in uhm.. well? Tuna. That's about it. It is fun watching try
You still just don't get what average exposure comparison means. a year's supply is a year's supply. It is a MEASUREMENT UNIT. I have already shown you how many times more exposure average people get from their average exposure to tuna vs their average exposure to HFCS. I have also shown your claim that large swathes of the population do not eat tuna is erroneous. Where things are found has no relevance to the average total intake. When was the last time you looked at sodas? Ever heard of diet?
It's almost as if the more wrong you are, the angrier you become. It's amusing.
"I have also shown your claim that large swathes of the population do not eat tuna is erroneous."
Obviously there are significant portions of the population that don't eat tuna. Vegetarians to start off, then add in people who don't eat seafood. then add people who simply don't care for tuna. Then people who are allergic to tuna or something in tuna. Your statement is ridiculous and foolish.
There are 4.7 million estimated adult vegetarians in this country. That is 1.5% for those counting at home. Let us compare that to diagnosed diabetics who have little to no intake of sugar which is 17.9 million which is 6% of the population. There are also people with true fructose allergy, not just intolerance. Your knowledge of statistics is as piss poor as your knowledge of biology.
People with diabetes avoid direct sugar intake, generally, but that is far different from avoiding HFCS. For example, people with diabetes still are generally able to consume modest amounts of products like bread, pasta sauce, etc. Also, I know from personal experience with people with diabetes, that it generally does not mean that someone eliminates sugar from their diet entirely, but rather that their blood sugar levels need to be closely and constantly monitored. In other words, a majority
People with diabetes are supposed to avoid fructose in particular. Diabetics consume very little in the way of refined sugars compared to the average person by an enormous margin. Their exposure thus would be almost nil. Since you do not even know what an average is or why comparisons are valid it is impossible to explain to you why you are so wrong. I cannot put it any clearer terms than I have. Your hg argument holds no water and you have not shown how HFCS is any different than other sugars.
The ways in HFCS is different are obvious. Not only have I patiently articulated them to you, but you've acknowledged some of them through your own arguments. Any statistician will tell you that one of the most prominent and problematic characteristics of statistics is that they often don't tell the whole story and can easily be manipulated by people intent on bending them in a direction more conducive to proving their point. But to reiterate, again, HFCS is different from other sugars because
of the artificial enzymatic processing that is involved in its manufacture. This fact is accentuated by HFCS's absence in any products labeled organic. This is simply because HFCS is not and has never been produced organically, or in other words, naturally. You continually refer to statistics, but then you respond to my point by using terms like "almsot nil." That's speculative. I disagree. HFCS is in so many products that it's simply impossible to avoid it. Also, each individual exposure
We have also discussed how you do not understand how enzymatic processes work and how "artifical enzymatic processes" are used in the majority of your foods, regardless of HFCS content. You realize most if not all your table sugar is not "organic"? Here's betting you didn't know that either despite us already discussing the refinement of beets and cane sugar.
IT remains that HFCS is merely a suspension of glucose and fructose in water. Just like pear juice. Just like apple juice.
Yes, I realize most if not all my table sugar is not organic, I haven't the slightest clue what part of my previous comment made you get so excited as to jump to that conclusion. It's as if you're so desperate to prove me wrong that you're willing to obnoxiously shove statements into my mouth. Does this sort of transparent childish arguing usually prove successful for you? Your mentioning of the fact that most table sugar sold isn't organic is a deflection of my observation that NO organic
Your primary argument against HFCS has been that it is made "artificially" and not "organically". You do not make the same argument against table sugar, though the same is true. That implies that you are either a hypocrite disingenuously serving a purpose or woefully ignorant. Which is it?
It is neither, as your initial accusation is wrong. The artificial production process of HFCS is my primary RESPONSE to your defense of it, which is based on the claim that it is no different from other forms of sugar. My insistence regarding the invented and patented production of HFCS is a direct response to YOUR defense of it. I have no specific "primary" argument against HFCS, rather I have a culmination of negative factors pertaining to HFCS, and therefore a logical conclusion that it is
This began because you took issue with how they advertised, to which I pointed out you had made no argument, just as the guy in the commercial. You then attempted to explain it of your own volition without my position stated. Your responses have repeatedly illustrated why "a little information is a dangerous thing". You've never provided a valid reason for HFCS to be considered differently from sucrose, merely parroted the typical under-analysis forwarded on popular conspiracy style blogs.
My personal motivations for avoiding HFCS are it's unnatural properties and its questionable production standards. MY primary reason for avoiding the sugar substitute is different from a primary argument asserting the negative effects on human health that can be scientifically associated with HFCS. It's remarkable that you should accuse me of parroting others, as a majority of your arguments have been based on the parroting of very limited and oftentimes misrepresented statistics.
products contain HFCS. I certainly never made the argument that removing HFCS would be some sort of miracle cure for America's health problems. And as a believer in a free market (which at this point is admittedly a fiction in our country) I wouldn't advocate a ban of the cheap, harmful sugar substitute. If you'll recall, my criticisms were of this ridiculous commercial and how its transparent and condescending tone can only have the opposite effect than the one intended by HFCS manufacturers
YOu are reiterating why people need commercials like this, because your arguments are not based on any valid science or analysis, simply on a "new is bad" mentality popular with snake oil selling alt healthers and conspiracy nuts. IF you made an economic argument and left it at that I wouldn't have said a word. You didn't. You made invalid scientific arguments that amount to little more than a verbose promotion of the man's position in the video.
We can have a separate debate/argument on the topic of "snake oil selling alt healthers and conspiracy nuts" as you put it, but for sake of staying somewhat focused, suffice it to say that there is obviously more to this problem then simply the economic aspect, as you've acknoweledged yourself by pointing out the cultural trends of less exercise, etc.. Your claim that my opinions are only a promotion of this video and its maker is entirely speculative on your part, and not worth any further
It is not purely speculative when your answers display that you do not have the basic knowledge of chemistry, biology or mathematics to conduct an independent analysis. You fight tooth and nail against the basic chemical facts of what constitutes HFCS, and the validity of any use of statistics and probability to an absurdity. There is nothing wrong with skepticism, but a skeptic can realize when they don't have an argument. When you "believe" regardless of the facts it has become paranoia.
I've repeatedly demonstrated my superior knowledge of chemistry biology and mathematics, as compared to yours. Your cynical manipulation of these sciences is entirely transparent. It is you who's fighting tooth and nail against the basic chemistry behind HFCS, in your reluctance to give credence to the fact that HFCS is unique from either sucrose or fructose, in that it is an INVENTED, PATENTED substance. statistics are very valid, and so is your obvious manipulation and distortion of them.
Your superior math that doesn't know that the mean and the arithmetic average are the same or the meaning of units? Your superior chemistry that does not understand that HFCS is merely a suspension of a certain ratio of glucose and fructose molecules in water?
Your chemistry that does not understand that the only difference between hfcs and any other glucose fructose suspension (like apple and orange juice) is plant that originally formed the sugar? Econ? Patents exist on ALL sugar refinement.
HFCS is not the result of a refinement process, but of a production process. Nice try though.
"the only difference between hfcs and any other glucose fructose suspension (like apple and orange juice) is plant that originally formed the sugar"
To claim that the only difference between the man-made concoction of HFCS and apple/organge juice is the plant used to produce it, reflects a hopeless ignorance of basic chemistry, and basic common sense. There are many differences between fruit juice
Do tell what those differences are then. I can't wait to hear them. Don't pull the semantic juice v. syrup either, because you know damn well what was intended.
HFCS is absolutely the result of a refinement process you dolt. It is the REFINEMENT of corn syrup. You can't be that stupid can you? Seriously, for your own sake you should just delete that one and the multiple mean/average ones...
You should delete every moronic statement you've made, the ones I've explicitly pointed out, and I'm sure I've missed a couple along the way, so just about every one of your comments. The artificial adding of enzymes and the processing that follows distinguishes HFCS's production from the refining process of beet or cane sugars. You probably know this and are pretending not to. If not I feel bad for you. I like how you've latched onto my use of the word "dolt"though. Go back and check your
I am still waiting for the statement I made that was wrong, nor do I recall you using the word dolt. The time you tried to point out my inaccuracies you were grossly wrong, such as mean/a. average, composition of HFCS, HFCS not being refined.
The "artificial" adding of an enzyme is used in a host of other production processes, and is not substantially different from a wide variety of other products, and you continue to ignore the addition of "artificial" substances to ALL sugar refinements.
You've made quite a few incorrect statements. One of the most blatant was your claim that HFCS is no different from other sugars. There are ample reasons why HFCS is different and worse than table sugar. HFCS reduces the activity of your insulin receptors, which is among the reasons why, many experts believe, that HFCS can be conclusively linked to diabetes. HFCS is exclusively made with genetically modified corn. This debunks any claim of HFCS being natural. HFCS prvents the bodys
Would you like to back that up with evidence? Here is one that contradicts you:
PMID: 18469239
Fructose, relative to glucose, is associated with higher insulin resist., but sucrose has more fructose in it than all but HFCS 90.
All corn is genetically modified. Do you know what corn was like before western farming? I bet not. You are simply taking issue with how science has accelerated the process.
So, how many more times are you going to err in claiming I have made "incorrect statements"?
"All corn is genetically modified." Add that one to the list.
I'm not being sarcastic. I'm honestly asking. What on earth are you talking about? This statement is so obviously false as to not require any explanation on my part.
In regards to your half-hearted response to my listing of some of the reasons why HFCS is worse than table sugar: Your claims ignore the fact that HFCS is by far our #1 source of fructose. While sucrose does have more fructose, the simple fact is that we consume
PRESENT A STUDY. Just one supporting your claim that consensus says HFCS is particular and peculiar in its detrimental effects.
I actually just gave you all of the relevant studies on Pubmed. I didn't even mention that before, because I wanted to see if you would actually try to reply.
The source of fructose is IRRELEVANT. Economics is NOT a biological argument against HFCS especially since your argument is that it is WORSE for you than sucrose. We have already been through this.
Do you even know what exponentially means? It is particularly ironic that you would make a "finer point" argument with such obvious hyperbole.
As to genetically modified, I am following the same logic you use for the use of alcohol. It is quite apparent that you do not understand genetics and the history of the domestication of crops either. Do you really want to argue the semantics with me? Or just accept that modifying the genes of plants is what we have done for 10000 years?
For the record: average american HFCS intake is roughly 26 Kg. Average refined sugar (cane and beets) is about 22 Kg. For this to be an exponential difference the average HFCS intake would have to be 484 Kg. For it to be be truly geometric it would require an intake of 44 kg HFCS. That is a ratio of 11:13 or roughly a 46%/54% split in intake.
"Or just accept that modifying the genes of plants is what we have done for 10000 years?"
And you had just mentioned semantics. Just when I thought you couldn't get any more laughable and self-defeating. Obviously the genetic modification to which I was referring is the modern, gene-splicing, laboratory variety, and not the process of selective breeding, you jackass. The studies I would cite are the same ones you have, as you still seem to have missed the point that we consume much more
Obviously I was pointing out that your limitations on what genetic modification are "artificial" to use your own terms and show a basic misunderstanding of how genetics work.
I just gave you the numbers from the American Heart association on sugar consumption and just how wrong you are. You want to discuss how you do not understand basic mathematical terminology and usage some more?
The arguments are just being reiterated at this point. I've presented you with a list of reasons why HFCS is both different and more dangerous. If you stubbornly refuse to acknowledge them that's your problem. Your insistent separation of the economic and the biological factors that speak against HFCS is unwarranted, as there is a point at which they bleed together. FOR EXAMPLE: the REASON HFCS is consumed more IS BECAUSE IT'S CHEAPER. The amount of consumption is obviously relevent.
It is not unwarranted and I have explained why. The intake of sucrose is not significantly less than that of HFCS, and there is nothing to suggest a reduction in HFCS would not result in an increase in sucrose just as the reverse has been true. Biologically, studies show there is no difference in how they are used by the body. Statistically the Hg contamination is negligible. Your arguments are based around unfounded paranoia of advanced science resulting from a basic lack of understanding.
You're negating the fundamental reason WHY HFCS has displaced sucrose in terms of intake. It's precisely because of its pricetag. Removing HFCS will not make table sugar cheaper. Your arguments are based around a reactionary and irrational deification of statistics that has no basis in reality. You reflect exactly the type of docile acceptance of sub-par dietary practices that is hoped for by the monied interests behind such products as HFCS.
HFCS than we do sucrose. People consume more fructose through HFCS than they do from sucrose. You're absolutely correct that it is fructose that is linked to damage of insulin receptors, and you're absolutely WRONG for IGNORING the fact that OUR #1 SOURCE OF FRUCTOSE IS HFCS. Are you even aware that the H and the F in HFCS stands for HIGH FRUCTOSE? Source of fructose is NOT irrelevant. this statement is ludicrous. Obviously one would want very much to determine the primary source of intake
The source is irrelevant if the only argument you are making is the economic one, which is the source of consumption differences. The numbers do not support a claim that sucrose would not replace HFCS in short order with any subtraction of HFCS from products. You still have made absolutely no argument supporting a biological/metabolic difference between HFCS and sucrose, which has been the center of your contention the entire time.
Therefore, SOURCE is relevant, since the source sheds vast amounts of light on the economic side of the problem, which is the enabler of these high intakes of HFCS. You're mistaken about my 'contention the entire time.' Go back and read your comments. You took it upon YOURSELF to respond to my criticism of the commercial with an insistance that I explain the health risks associated with HFCS. I stated my preference to stay focused on one point at a time, but that didn't interest you. So I
proceeded to articulate to you, as best as possible from my admittedly laymen's perspective, the unique health hazards created or exacerbated by HFCS. You then responded by a childish and, frankly, nerdy focus on the minutia, rather than the undeniable core of my arguments, which you know deep down are correct, hence your focus on side issues like the definition of mean/average.
I was even willing to concede econ, despite it being entirely speculative and not supported by the numbers, but even then you couldnt let go of the other two patently inaccurate "core points" .
My details are right, ergo your conclusions are wrong. Fact is that youve gotten precious little correct in this entire discourse. You havent presented a single study that supports your claims and it's ludicrous that you would argue pointing out your errors in detail is somehow deleterious to my argument.
"tests have revealed that approximately 49% of America's supply of HFCS is potentially contaminated with mercury. Aside from that there is the considerable evidence that HFCS is much more dangerous that sugar when it comes to the potential to trigger diabetes"
Both are proven incorrect. The first is a) wrong (45%) and b.) a gross misuse of stats as I showed in detail. The second is proven incorrect by biological testing as shown by the studies I posted.
You stated correctly that fructose is the suspected culprit in reduced insulin receptor function. But you've failed to acknowledge that HFCS, as a CHEAPER SOURCE OF FRUCTOSE, is obviously a bigger risk factor than table sugar. Combine this with the common sense fact that it's just cheaper, and it becomes extremely difficult to see what basis your defense of HFCS has.
I just gave the numbers on consumption of the two. 46% v. 54%. That is a negligible difference in an economic argument, because it does not suggest that anything but our artificial market is keeping sucrose down. We have tariffs on sucrose and government subsidies for HFCS. Remove HFCS and the demand for sweet is not suddenly going to change. Sucrose will merely replace it. Ergo unless there is a biological difference it is not relevant. The issue here is the DEMAND for sweet from the public.
I disagree that a full 8% is negligible in economic terms. But setting that aside, it is still fundamentally true that it is cheaper to produce HFCS than it is to produce table sugar. This fact remains true, regardless of government subsidies or tariffs. You seem to be asserting that the populace's demand for sugar preceded the development of HFCS., whereas I'm asserting that the development of HFCS is really just a SYMPTOM of the trend to feed as many people as possible as cheap ingredients
It is not fundamentally true. It is a product specifically of the US' personal resources. We have a climate better suited for producing corn than beets or cane. It is actually cheaper to produce beet sugar. The difference is transportation costs and particularly import tariffs. Now you could blame that on our corporations if you like.
But transportation and other expenses must be taken into account, therefore corn is still the cheaper crop to invest in. Also, corns versatility versus beets must be taken into account. In other words, it would be a wiser decision to produce corn, rather than beets because there are a million and one ways to sell corn. it's used in everything from HFCS to gasoline, whereas the uses for beets are much more limited. I'm not trying to make some grandiose argument, like "avoid HFCS and you'll
It is a wiser crop for us, but that has little relevance to the production of HFCS. We could be making more corn products for feed and ethanol instead if we were to lower the tariffs. The corn farming businesses WILL NOT let that happen as higher prices are better for them as the recent increase in ethanol has proven.
It remains that HFCS is not in any way different from sucrose in human practice.
Your details are wrong. Your regurgitation of statistics is accurate, I'll give you that. but to be sure, your interpretation, and also your failure to accept the limitation of said statistics is your fault. In your attempt to "point out errors in detail" you entirely miss points made and focus instead on perhaps semantics (like how you respond to the fact that all HFCS is genetically modied by claiming that 'genetic modification' goes back millenia, which is true only in a technical sense)
Your only "critique" of my stats was your erroneous claim of misuse of average v. Mean. And then you ask why I have to bring it up? How do you not understand that if your details are wrong your points are as well?
I do not simply focus on those semantics. I follow YOUR lines of argumentation ie ignore that catalysts are used in the refining of all sucrose; that "extraction" is somehow not a refinement; that because we've been refining sucrose longer it is ok or somehow substantially different.
"how do you not understand that if your details are wrong your points are as well?"
You've just corrected my statistic of 49% to 45%. Does this change my point that NEARLY HALF our HFCS supply has been found to be contaminated with mercury? No. All it does is provide you with another hair to split. Nice try. Your choice of the word catalyst is telling. Namely because the enzymes artificially added to HFCS serve an entirely different purpose from the "catalysts" to which you refer.
NO, it is merely another point showing your lack of detail that is exhibited throughout your arguments. Notice how you didn't talk about the rest of that point which was how that 45% is a gross misuse of statistics that does not describe the actual consequences of that contamination which was in all but one sample measured in NANOGRAMS.
Oh really? Those enzymes serve a purpose different from accelerating a chemical process? lol
For example, sulfur dioxide, chlorine, or ammonium bisulfite may be added during the refining of table sugar, but this is merely to serve as a disinfectant, and has no relevance to the actual production of the sugar. The same cannot be said about the enzymatic processing performed during HFCS production.
If I were to use your hyper-literal standards of definition, disinfectants are most certainly catalysts of the process, as they play a role in its completion. What enzymes are artificially added to table sugar?
Covered this already. Inorganic catalysts are added to table sugar in order to speed the process. Methanol, sodium methoxide and amberlite. They make the refinement produce a higher yield of sucrose. I did not say that enzymes were used, but all enzymes are catalysts, and your argument is one of contamination. Each inorganic catalyst added is a potential contaminant. I would expect there are processes for using enzymes as well, they just arent cost efficient.
In practice the mercury contamination has already been addressed, because many processes for HFCS do not offer that possibility, and legislation has been passed to eliminate it from the production of the caustic soda as well (the origin of said contamination). Seriously there are many other much more threatening sources of Hg: air in many parts of our country; foods: rice has been shown to contain higher levels of hg and other env. toxins than HFCS by exponential degrees (still short of tuna).
production of the hormone Leptin, which is the hormone that makes you feel full and therefore stop eating. It has been found to be contaminated with mercury. Provide a quote in which I make an incorrect statement regarding mean vs average. My reiteration of basic statistics was in response to your obvious overreliance, and your primary defense seems to be the distraction of bringing up things utterly irrelevant to HFCS, since your advocacy of the substance is entirely unfounded.
No my use of statistics was in response to your inaccuracies about the level and importance of Hg contamination in HFCS. They showed how inconsequential that contamination is relative to standards and in comparison to another common source. They were entirely appropriate and your responses showed that you lacked even rudimentary understanding of units of measurement, statistics and probability.
comments. You start using it alot after I do hahah. Another obvious difference is that through the industrial manufacturing of HFCS, the opportunities for contamination (of mercury, for example), and overall poor production standards are exacerbated and amplified, much more so than compared to other forms of sugar, as the cheap price tag of HFCS only helps to encourage the "cheaper the better" mentality of its producers.
The enzymes are organic. The catalysts used in producing sugar are not: amberlite, methanol, milk of lime and sodium methoxide. Each of those presents an "opportunity for contamination" as you put it. Fact is you do not know the processes you are talking about, reiterating the lack of any scientific substance to your argument. Again, you have to show a specific reason why the production of HFCS is particularly detrimental The hg argument does not hold water and you haven't presented any others.
I'm not sure what your point is, by mentioning that the added anzymes are organic. If this is in reference to the fact that no products labeled organic contain HFCS, I'm not sure how it pertains. There are many widely acknowledged reasons why HFCS is detrimental, just as there is the same for table sugar. But HFCS is also widely acknowledged to be worse. Why you've decided to contradict this professional consensus I have no idea.
It is not widely acknowledged to be worse by scientists. It is only done so by alt-health bloggers.
Doctors argue that over-consumption of fructose is a problem but that it is an economic issue and does not single out HFCS for any other reason from other fructose sources (including sucrose) other than it is inexpensive.
If you think otherwise, present a scientific study singling out HFCS from plain fructose.
to a product with HFCS is a new and statistically just as likely an opportunity to be exposed to mercury, as compared to tuna, which even by non diabetics, is encounter drastically less than HFCS, so much so that even with a higher average mercury level, the amount of exposure is likely to be greater from something as pervasive as HFCS. You're incorrect about vegetarians. Although people who eat fish or chicken often call themselves vegetarians, this fact is actually resented by the majority
Statistically, NO IT IS NOT as likely an opportunity for exposure. Do you really not understand how probability works? Remember the part where I told you that the numbers I was giving were the highest EVER recorded? Over half the samples, including ALL of those made in a particular process were COMPLETELY clean. Of the rest, the majority were under.025 ug. Do you have any idea how small an amount that is?
Whether it is resented or not, fact is it is a sizable part of that population.
As I've already explained, I'm skeptical of the figures for contamination in HFCS, and more and impartial testing is badly needed. You can cite the statistics all you want, the point I'm making is that there's no reason to trust them, as much more are needed, not to mention the many examples of scientists and researchers fudging data to please their funders. Until more studies are conducted there's no logical reason to trust the figures. Aside from that, I still think your comparison to tuna
is flawed, since the sheer number of encounters with possibly contaminated HFCS is more considerable that you think. For example, picture a kid who happens to not care for tuna, but is still exposed to, let's say, 12 sources of HFCS per day. This would be typical for a lower social status kid with a relatively poor diet. This would add up to roughly 4380 individual instances of exposure to HFCS, versus 0 for tuna, in this particular hypothetical instance.
This has been flagged as spam show
This is the type of stuff the government want for its people, you think a government that protects and serves the people that gives them life(tax) would want to harm them, the only people willing to die for the government in order to protect them(in a dream world that is) because they protect the people? Down with the government that is give us the people poison! If you disagree just blow your brains out right now! WE NEED A FN REVOLUTION TO OVER THROW THESE PEOPLE KILLING US NOW!!!!!!!!!!!
1rebelblood 2 weeks ago
Stop it with the insulting "sheeple" crap. Shit, why does everything related to anti-government have to come with it? It makes me feel like I'm watching an underground cultist brain scrubbing program. Brilliant information aside, people who aren't aware of what our government is doing to people are bound to not take this information seriously because of the sheep bleating at the end. Insulting the intelligence of people is going to repel them. I'm fully informed, and I find it a disgrace.
AstroStar7 1 month ago
The poison's in the dose. Every breath of air you take has plutonium in it from atomic bomb tests 50 years ago. The worst thing about high fructose corn syrup is that it has high fructose corn syrup in it.
cdoftx 7 months ago
End High Fructose Corn Syrup, artificially fluoridated (poison) water, MSG and hydrolyzed proteins and food, Aspartame in all foods, Fluoride in toothpaste and foods, and thimerosal.
TorontoSportsNetwork 8 months ago
@TorontoSportsNetwork End the government, solve the problem.
1rebelblood 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
AND THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE
LoveVanillaRose 9 months ago
So they show some other website's page and a bunch of other ''propaganda'' out there telling all of you this.. and yet none of you can say that you've done the experiments on your own with your own testing equipment and machines?? You make me laugh so hard.. I'm still alive and kickin.. and still smart as hell.. stop whining and go outside already and enjoy your Lives instead of searching for bs, because this is all you will find.. shit to make you satisfied..
jason4themoney 10 months ago
ORGANIC FOOD FTW MOTHER F#$@
RioUchiha 10 months ago 3
Eat natural food. If you can, grow your own vegetables. Buy fresh vegetables and fruit. Also, get a good juicer to extract the juices out of vegetables and stuff so you would get a balance Alkaline intake versus acid stuff like processed food.
Topazman12 1 year ago 3
I broke flourescent light bulb the other day. I think they have mercury.
SpatialVortex 1 year ago 2
Fat ugly violent sick sad evil AMERICANS --Yum It tastes sweet - yum yum - eat more- Stay home - we don't want you or your money--stay in America & be pro-war pro-Gun pro-Atomic weapons- pro-killer drone aircraft-- & pro LIFE -The God hopless wankers of this planet.
sargonsrobot 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
There are no known risks associated with vaccinations.
We support the work of the pharmaceutical industry and invest heavily in their research.
There's NO conclusive evidence that vaccines at birth cause Autism.
Get your annual vaccinations and keep yourself up-to-date to boost your child's immune system to prevent Autism.
We support the Center for Disease Control, World Health Organization, the FDA, DHS and the Obama Administration's efforts to mass vaccinate the world to save billions of lives
CorporateRule 1 year ago
They say it's fine in moderation but rather difficult when almost all of America's food has H.F.C.S.
NicolasYates 1 year ago 3
It's bad enough that it's Genetically Engineered from corn crops dosed with high levels of pesticides this makes it even worse.
NorthNorth2009 1 year ago
There is no sanctity... satan is trying to kill us all... it's possible to eat shit without HFCS but everything without HFCS is more expensive :/
xdyingfetusx69 1 year ago
was her name , Eve ?
s4a4v4y 1 year ago
Made in china
gervic23 1 year ago
@gervic23 Uh no HFCS was invented in the US because they had alot of excess corn and had to get rid of it somehow..
ddnguyen278 1 year ago
@ddnguyen278 Well, the excess of corn is not really an excess at all... It's a direct result from the govt. subsidizing corn farmers (through the aid of corporate lobbying). Now it's the only profitable crop for the small time farmer and it has led to the monopolization of the food industry by corn.
TheMrVogue 1 year ago
Thank god for 3d models to make smart shit more understandable.
D4682 1 year ago
so what do I have to do? stop eating every food that I'm already eating? over 80% of everything i consume in my daily life has HFCS in it
iamgoombaalt 1 year ago
@iamgoombaalt yep thats what im saying !!!!!!!!!!!!!
catrapesdog99 1 year ago 3
@catrapesdog99 but everyone I know eats that stuff, I've been eating it since the day I was born and I'm overall normal
iamgoombaalt 1 year ago
@iamgoombaalt how old are you ??? the stuff has only been on the market for like 15 years give or take a year or 2. and if youve been eating it since the day you were born how would you know what normal feels like ????? think about what im saying
catrapesdog99 1 year ago 16
@catrapesdog99 I'm actually 15, I do have aspergers syndrome but I'm not like an outcast of society, I'm not like those fucking annoying aspies who never fit in with everyone else and become lonely their whole life, I can just be awkward in some situations or clumsy, and sometime I can be cloudy in the head, but I still overall have a pretty normal life, and I doubt that it would be caused by an ingredient in some food.
iamgoombaalt 1 year ago
@catrapesdog99 ok.. so.. how are you still alive? if this was true, then you should all be dead by now.. Right?
jason4themoney 10 months ago
@iamgoombaalt I did it and I thought it would be terrible. Actually went though withdrawl if you can believe that, I used to only drink mountain dew. But after a while I felt better than ever before.
melissacarl2002 1 year ago
@iamgoombaalt Yes. Stop eating garbage. We are what we eat. Also look up MSG, Fluoride, Aspertame and Thimerosal.
Remember the founder's warning: "All enemies, foreign and domestic."
There are alternatives.
Peace
mskydolphin 1 year ago 8
@iamgoombaalt nooo just eat organic foods , simple
rob5linx 11 months ago
If snails have a brain , why dont they wise up and get the lead out
flaskmunch 1 year ago
Actually, cheaper HFCS's are being imported from China which still uses mercury in the process. You do not know which products with HFCS is safe and which are contaminated with mercury. Don't play Russian roulette when there are better choices out there, especially with your children's health. It's a no brainer.
FightForKids1 1 year ago
nice commerical!
denisemichna 2 years ago
Hmm... a bit sleepy. Need a cuppa :-) brb. xxooxx
karlkarlkarl1234 2 years ago
YES!!!! From the time this commercial first came on I was like, that is not true so I looked up information on HFCS! I can not wait to push play and see what someone has to say about that commercial. I already knew that HFCS is cheap and more industries use it as an additive so the reason for the Commercial is obvious.
wavepsychic 2 years ago
This is sickening. And I can't believe there are people defending HFCS and its derivatives at this point. You think Monsanto would make it apparent to kill people through a large dose of Hg in foods and risk getting sued? It's less profitable and less efficient. You buy out the people on a gradual scale w/ just the right amount of Hg to kill them slowly and profitably. STUPID AMERICANS CAN"T EVEN COMPREHEND THIS SIMPLE FACT! DUMB FUCKS.
teo829 2 years ago 2
Its derivatives are glucose and fructose you idiot. Without those you would die, quickly.
batigol47 2 years ago
I don't think you should be calling anyone names! There is more than enough research to prove the pure evil of HFCS! It's not worth arguing with someone who thinks it's good for you.
ajcurly 2 years ago
Is that so. Provide some of that research.
batigol47 2 years ago
Comment removed
teo829 2 years ago
People participating in this sort of advert should be kicked in their asses. I hope there will come a day when people take responsibility for what they are doing beyond the what-should-i-do-its-my-job argument.
WolYou 2 years ago
healthfulness and safety of an unnatural and inadequately tested product.
"Do tell what other than how HFCS is metabolized matters."
Well, for starters, there's the documented fact that up to half our supply of HFCS may be contaminated with mercury at any one time.. and the indications that HFCS could be linked with a higher risk of diabetes. You may say that there's no compelling evidence for this, but that's only illustrating the point that this question needs to be thoroughly examined.
paleopeneyes 2 years ago
Did you read the study? Have you read any studies on how much of our regular sugar is contaminated at any given time?
batigol47 2 years ago
Yes I've read the study. Have you? Yes, the average levels of contamination are much higher than compared to sugar.
paleopeneyes 2 years ago
the highest level recorded was 0.57 ug/g, Fewer than half the samples had any detected and most were significantly lower. Now compare that to albacore tuna at an average of 52.7 ug/g. Fact is that the numbers are insignificant, and that the results have not been repeatable. Meanwhile it remains that the caustic soda expected as the source is also used in the production of plain table sugar. Further this is a CONTAMINANT, not part of the normal product.
batigol47 2 years ago 2
I had forgotten about you, actually, since one of your last comments was just too dimwitted to deserve a response.
"if you're going to rule against HFCS you have to rule against all sugar."
Yeah, that one. So if I rule against HFCS I have to also rule against apples and pears? Ridiculous.
paleopeneyes 2 years ago
They are fructose, which is the majority of HFCS, so yes.
Do you know what an enzyme does?
batigol47 2 years ago
The majority? So if a substance contains a majority of something natural, you give it the "thumbs up"? So a barrel of toxic waste that is PRIMARILY filled with spring water is A-okay in your book. Yeah, not smart.
paleopeneyes 2 years ago
So you think that regular table sugar is 100% pure? Is that what you are suggesting? lol
Keep digging your hole.
batigol47 2 years ago
100% natural, from a technically scientific perspective, yes. The only hole I'm digging is up in your ass during this conversation : )
paleopeneyes 2 years ago
google it if you don't believe me. HFCS was INVENTED. Try saying the same about table sugar.
paleopeneyes 2 years ago
Sucrose doesn't just "happen". It has to be extracted from the plants using such things as lime.
Those processes are just as "invented" as HFCS.
batigol47 2 years ago
No those processes are not just as "invented" as HFCS, as the end result is merely a natural substance extracted, rather than an unnatural substance created. Extracting a natural substance from a plant is not the same as CREATING a substance in a laboratory.
paleopeneyes 2 years ago
So now you are saying that glucose and fructose are not natural?
batigol47 2 years ago
Sucrose is broken down into glucose and fructose in a water solution by your body, so yes HFCS is created naturally, The only difference is that we figured out a way to make it measure it and use it in a practical way.
batigol47 2 years ago
Speaking of deflections.. You've met one of the criteria in your explanation.. the body may break down sucrose, in the same manner that the MAKERS of HFCS do, but you've failed to meet the other criteria.. namely, that of it being FOOD. In other words, many things are extracted from animals and plants and consumed as food. Fats, sugars, carbohydrates, proteins, etc.. but your example is only of the fundamental processes involved in the making of HFCS, and not of it both OCCURRING in nature
paleopeneyes 2 years ago
There you go showing your ignorance of basic biology again. Sucrose is broken down into glucose and fructose so that your body can use them AS FOOD.
batigol47 2 years ago
FOOD SOURCE, genius. Do you know what that means? Did you pass 9th grade biology? Once the food has been ingested it is then transformed into other, entirely different substances. So you're equating a high intake of table sugar with a high intake of moonshine? Just when I thought this couldn't get any more ridiculous.
paleopeneyes 2 years ago
So you don't think there are food sources with glucose and fructose in them? You don't think you ever eat that mixture?
Yes, I am equating high table sugar intake with moonshine intake.
All substances are dangerous at a certain dose. And I am still curious as to how you think HFCS is metabolized differently than any other solution of glucose and fructose by your body.
batigol47 2 years ago
No, I do think there are food sources with glucose and fructose in them. The question is how on earth you could be so ridiculously stupid as to actually assert that there are food sources with HFCS in it. I like how you QUALIFY your description of table sugar intake with the word "high" but don't do the same for moonshine. Administered in equal amounts, anyone but an imbecile would agree that table sugar would be MUCH less harmful than a corresponding amount of moonshine.
paleopeneyes 2 years ago
There are millions of food sources with HFCS in them.
Dose is not a "qualification". It is a fact. If I gave you more than the requisite dose of water it would kill you as well.
Now compare HFCS doses to Sucrose. You have yet to show how a solution of glucose and fructose (HFCS) is metabolized differently than a sucrose solution.
batigol47 2 years ago
Has it occurred to you that there is more to consider then simply whether or not HFCS is metabolized similarly to other sugars? Doesn't seem like it. Correct, dose "is a fact." And the fact is that you qualified your statement by metioning a "high" dosage of table sugar, but only mentioning moonshine, and not mentioning any specific dosage. This was my point, which you seem to be ether too dumb or too stubborn to acknowledge. There are millions of FOODS with HFCS, not millions of food
paleopeneyes 2 years ago
Do tell what other than how HFCS is metabolized matters. I can't WAIT to hear this one.
Are you going to say it hurts the environment? The Economy? what?
Your point on my use of an adjective in this forum where we are limited in how much can be written shows just how far you will go to deflect from the fact that you have established no valid scientific reason for HFCS being treated differently than sucrose.
batigol47 2 years ago
The fact that it is an invented substance contaminated with mercury with inadequate testing, and possible links to increased risks for disease is good for starters.
Your attempt to hide behind the 500 character limit to defend your lame 2 word response is entirely indicative of why I don't like you, or your cheap defense of HFCS. You're very good at trying to spin things, I'll give you that. But you're completely wrong. Stop asking me to do your research for you. You'll have to ask the
paleopeneyes 2 years ago
Deflect deflect deflect. I have asked you multiple times to prove how a suspension of glucose and fructose is different for your body than a suspension of sucrose which is broken down in to what: glucose and fructose so that your cells can use it. You refuse to answer and then produce the lame mercury claim. Contamination has no bearing on whether HFCS is a safe product since contamination means something is in there that should not be part of the product when it is made.
batigol47 2 years ago
And I've told you multiple times that it's the arificial enzymatic processing that is performed that makes it different. The only deflection here is your unwillingness to admit that the burden of proof is yours, as you are the one supporting an unnatural substance unknown to the world just 50 years ago. The contamination is chronic, and it persists to this day. It is also indicative the poor standards involved in producing the cheap sugar substitute. Why is HFCS generally recognized, even by
paleopeneyes 2 years ago
No, the burden of proof is on you to show that it is used by your body in a way that is any more detrimental than regular table sugar. You have not provided that proof. Safety is shown by a lack of harm, that cannot be proven absolutely as it is a negative. You have to substantiate the claim that it is NOT safe through some positive correlation. You have not.
batigol47 2 years ago
You still don't seem to understand that the burden of proof is entirely yours. You are the one defending the introduction of a new product into the human diet, therefore, since you're the one with something to sell, you're the one who needs to do the selling. In other words, the "tests" necessary to prove the acceptability of natural sugars in our diets have already been performed, each and every time someone eats a fruit or vegetable. Those same "tests" however, have only just begun for HFCS
paleopeneyes 2 years ago
and honestly, it's not off to too great a start. Since the chemical has become ubiquitous in our diets, which occurred sometime in the early 70's, it is suspected of being the main culprit behind several chronic diseases plaguing the country, like obesity, diabetes, metabolic syndrome, and insulin resistance syndrome.
paleopeneyes 2 years ago
Its been in the diet for over 30 years and no ones died of mercury poisoning from it. You have yet to establish how it is biologically handled differently than any other sugar. Until you do that you have no argument and the burdens on you. All of the things you mention are linked to a large number of things in our diet and health including the uptake of ALL sugar and a general lack of exercise. You have not given one study proving a specific detrimental effect conspicuous to HFCS v. table sugar.
batigol47 2 years ago
You are woefully ignorant of both science and common sense. Mercury poisoning is cumulative. Oftentimes someone with extreme levels of mercury in their system will have come into contact with it from multiple sources, so the simple fact that no one has specifically suffered a death literally attributable to the mercury contained in HFCS that they consumed is not very significant in terms of evaluating the safety of the chemical, and you should know this. Or you do know this and you're
paleopeneyes 2 years ago
Yes, organic Hg is cumulative, and once again you get at minimum 7.25 times more from tuna than HFCS. Do you not even realize that the things you say are supporting my arguments?
Do you know how much Hg is in the air you breathe? Do you know what the EPA standard for DAILY exposure is?
batigol47 2 years ago
You're like a broken record of stupidity. You've failed to acknowledge the obvious fact that using 'average' statistics hides the fact that Tuna is not part of many peoples' diets, whereas HFCS is a part of everyone's diet, to one degree or another. I hope you realize what a 9 year old you come across as, when you blatantly ignore points I make, and cherrypick the ones you feel more comfortable responding to. It's like arguing with Bill O'reilly.
paleopeneyes 2 years ago
Do you understand why your Tuna comparison is not valid? Allow me to patiently try yet ANOTHER way to communicate this to you. Go to a grocery store. Ask 50 people whether they eat Tuna. It's highly probable the a significant portion of those people will answer in the negative. Now ask 50 more people whether or not they eat products containing HFCS. It's guaranteed that all 50 will say yes, and whoever doesn't, it's highly likely that they're simply mistaken and some amount of HFCS is part
paleopeneyes 2 years ago
You do not seem to understand that what this means is the average is VERY representative for HFCS, meaning that the level of exposure is inconsequential.
Of course you are still ignoring the ENORMOUS number of people who have very little if any sugar intake due to diabetes.
I am not cherry picking anything. I am responding to all of your idiocies. YOu on the other hand STILL have not even tried to present something showing that HFCS has a metabolically detrimental effect.
batigol47 2 years ago
of their diet. It's not difficult to understand. You're comparing an all-but-ubiquitous product to a product only consumed by a certain portion of the population. While you're correct that if one were to literally consume as much Tuna, by weight, as they do HFCS, then they'd be much more poisoned with mercury. But as (hopefully) you get by now, this fact is meaningless. You seem handy with facts, maybe you know this one: What percentage of the population consumes tuna fish? Don't hide
paleopeneyes 2 years ago
According to the mercury policy project, 90% of american households consume canned tuna. There goes another of your arguments down the tubes. Tuna IS ubiquitous to the average american's diet.
I did not say that people consumed the same amounts of both either. I gave the annual mean amount of consumption for both by the kilo.
batigol47 2 years ago
Tuna is ubiquitous? Are you being serious? The issue isn't fructose or glucose but the precise substance of HFCS, which, as you admitted yourself, is produces during the human digestive process.
paleopeneyes 2 years ago
Now apparently you do not know the meaning of words that you use. Good Job. Ubiquitous: constantly encountered. Do you think consumption by 90% of households and its presence in every single grocery store and most menus makes it not so?
HFCS is NOT a precise substance. It is three different substances idiot, and they are suspensions of certain ratios of glucose and fructose. The issue IS ENTIRELY that of fructose and glucose, because as has been shown anything else is a CONTAMINANT.
batigol47 2 years ago
I think that your lame attempt to hide behind your bullshit statistic is indicative of the cheap type of argument you continually try to make. The fact that 90% of households consume tuna and one time or another doesn't mean much, as the critical aspect is the comparison of amounts consumed. In other words, a family could have one household member who might eat tuna five or six times per year, and according to your dubious statistic, that household would be included in your 90%. Also, you're
paleopeneyes 2 years ago
eating tuna 5 times a year would STILL BE 3 TIMES MORE MERCURY exposure. Damn you are thick. So to equate that a person would have to at minimum eat 78 kg of HFCS per year.
batigol47 2 years ago 2
There are all kinds of factors and variables that could play a role. Not to mention that without honest and adequate research done regarding the safety of HFCS, your estimates regarding the extent of contamination remain preliminary.
paleopeneyes 2 years ago
My estimates are using the absolute HIGH found.
Have you given up on your mean/average argument then?
batigol47 2 years ago 2
misusing the statistic like the weasel you are, since the statistic was meant to portray tuna consumption independent of the comparison to HFCS, which was made by you. I'm amused by the fact that you need to force a conversation about comparisons to tuna fish in order to defend your ridiculous standpoint
paleopeneyes 2 years ago
What statistic am I misusing? The stat about average consumption of tuna?
There is nothing ridiculous about my standpoint. The clarity from the stats is that the Hg from HFCS is not of a level that is threatening in any way shape or form.
batigol47 2 years ago
Your desperate insistence on discussing tuna fish rather than HFCS, which is what you're so adamantly defending, is extremely telling. I've already explained how the statistics you've cited don't prove your dubious point. And after all, what does it say about HFCS, when one of the most common comparisons its proponents make, is to a known-to-be-toxic food like tuna?
paleopeneyes 2 years ago
Your desperate attempts to deflect from your lousy comprehension of statistics and vocabulary is telling.
The point was on the levels of hg in common food sources and how inconsequential HFCS' input is relative to that from other sources. Entirely relevant when your claim is that the contamination is a reason HFCS is "bad".
Fact is that there is ample evidence for Hg contamination to be expected in every part of our food chain due to environmental contamination.
batigol47 2 years ago
You're still missing the point that the risk is amplified and much more prevalent in HFCS due to its ubiquitous nature. Y'know, that same ubiquitous nature you equated with that of tuna fish? Yeah, cuz I can't remember the last time I could find bread with out tuna used as a sugar substitute. Or the last time I saw soda without tuna in it.. Or pasta sauce, or cereal.. Oh, wait.. actually no. Tuna can be found pretty much in uhm.. well? Tuna. That's about it. It is fun watching try
paleopeneyes 2 years ago
You still just don't get what average exposure comparison means. a year's supply is a year's supply. It is a MEASUREMENT UNIT. I have already shown you how many times more exposure average people get from their average exposure to tuna vs their average exposure to HFCS. I have also shown your claim that large swathes of the population do not eat tuna is erroneous. Where things are found has no relevance to the average total intake. When was the last time you looked at sodas? Ever heard of diet?
batigol47 2 years ago
It's almost as if the more wrong you are, the angrier you become. It's amusing.
"I have also shown your claim that large swathes of the population do not eat tuna is erroneous."
Obviously there are significant portions of the population that don't eat tuna. Vegetarians to start off, then add in people who don't eat seafood. then add people who simply don't care for tuna. Then people who are allergic to tuna or something in tuna. Your statement is ridiculous and foolish.
paleopeneyes 2 years ago
There are 4.7 million estimated adult vegetarians in this country. That is 1.5% for those counting at home. Let us compare that to diagnosed diabetics who have little to no intake of sugar which is 17.9 million which is 6% of the population. There are also people with true fructose allergy, not just intolerance. Your knowledge of statistics is as piss poor as your knowledge of biology.
How many more ways can you be wrong?
batigol47 2 years ago
People with diabetes avoid direct sugar intake, generally, but that is far different from avoiding HFCS. For example, people with diabetes still are generally able to consume modest amounts of products like bread, pasta sauce, etc. Also, I know from personal experience with people with diabetes, that it generally does not mean that someone eliminates sugar from their diet entirely, but rather that their blood sugar levels need to be closely and constantly monitored. In other words, a majority
paleopeneyes 2 years ago
For instance, diabetes often involves the opposite of avoiding sugar.. the dire need to consume it, in order to balance blood sugar.
paleopeneyes 2 years ago
People with diabetes are supposed to avoid fructose in particular. Diabetics consume very little in the way of refined sugars compared to the average person by an enormous margin. Their exposure thus would be almost nil. Since you do not even know what an average is or why comparisons are valid it is impossible to explain to you why you are so wrong. I cannot put it any clearer terms than I have. Your hg argument holds no water and you have not shown how HFCS is any different than other sugars.
batigol47 2 years ago
The ways in HFCS is different are obvious. Not only have I patiently articulated them to you, but you've acknowledged some of them through your own arguments. Any statistician will tell you that one of the most prominent and problematic characteristics of statistics is that they often don't tell the whole story and can easily be manipulated by people intent on bending them in a direction more conducive to proving their point. But to reiterate, again, HFCS is different from other sugars because
paleopeneyes 2 years ago
of the artificial enzymatic processing that is involved in its manufacture. This fact is accentuated by HFCS's absence in any products labeled organic. This is simply because HFCS is not and has never been produced organically, or in other words, naturally. You continually refer to statistics, but then you respond to my point by using terms like "almsot nil." That's speculative. I disagree. HFCS is in so many products that it's simply impossible to avoid it. Also, each individual exposure
paleopeneyes 2 years ago
We have also discussed how you do not understand how enzymatic processes work and how "artifical enzymatic processes" are used in the majority of your foods, regardless of HFCS content. You realize most if not all your table sugar is not "organic"? Here's betting you didn't know that either despite us already discussing the refinement of beets and cane sugar.
IT remains that HFCS is merely a suspension of glucose and fructose in water. Just like pear juice. Just like apple juice.
batigol47 2 years ago
Yes, I realize most if not all my table sugar is not organic, I haven't the slightest clue what part of my previous comment made you get so excited as to jump to that conclusion. It's as if you're so desperate to prove me wrong that you're willing to obnoxiously shove statements into my mouth. Does this sort of transparent childish arguing usually prove successful for you? Your mentioning of the fact that most table sugar sold isn't organic is a deflection of my observation that NO organic
paleopeneyes 2 years ago
Your primary argument against HFCS has been that it is made "artificially" and not "organically". You do not make the same argument against table sugar, though the same is true. That implies that you are either a hypocrite disingenuously serving a purpose or woefully ignorant. Which is it?
batigol47 2 years ago
It is neither, as your initial accusation is wrong. The artificial production process of HFCS is my primary RESPONSE to your defense of it, which is based on the claim that it is no different from other forms of sugar. My insistence regarding the invented and patented production of HFCS is a direct response to YOUR defense of it. I have no specific "primary" argument against HFCS, rather I have a culmination of negative factors pertaining to HFCS, and therefore a logical conclusion that it is
paleopeneyes 2 years ago
This began because you took issue with how they advertised, to which I pointed out you had made no argument, just as the guy in the commercial. You then attempted to explain it of your own volition without my position stated. Your responses have repeatedly illustrated why "a little information is a dangerous thing". You've never provided a valid reason for HFCS to be considered differently from sucrose, merely parroted the typical under-analysis forwarded on popular conspiracy style blogs.
batigol47 2 years ago
My personal motivations for avoiding HFCS are it's unnatural properties and its questionable production standards. MY primary reason for avoiding the sugar substitute is different from a primary argument asserting the negative effects on human health that can be scientifically associated with HFCS. It's remarkable that you should accuse me of parroting others, as a majority of your arguments have been based on the parroting of very limited and oftentimes misrepresented statistics.
paleopeneyes 2 years ago
in one's best interest to maintain a diet as devoid of HFCS as possible.
paleopeneyes 2 years ago
products contain HFCS. I certainly never made the argument that removing HFCS would be some sort of miracle cure for America's health problems. And as a believer in a free market (which at this point is admittedly a fiction in our country) I wouldn't advocate a ban of the cheap, harmful sugar substitute. If you'll recall, my criticisms were of this ridiculous commercial and how its transparent and condescending tone can only have the opposite effect than the one intended by HFCS manufacturers
paleopeneyes 2 years ago
YOu are reiterating why people need commercials like this, because your arguments are not based on any valid science or analysis, simply on a "new is bad" mentality popular with snake oil selling alt healthers and conspiracy nuts. IF you made an economic argument and left it at that I wouldn't have said a word. You didn't. You made invalid scientific arguments that amount to little more than a verbose promotion of the man's position in the video.
batigol47 2 years ago
We can have a separate debate/argument on the topic of "snake oil selling alt healthers and conspiracy nuts" as you put it, but for sake of staying somewhat focused, suffice it to say that there is obviously more to this problem then simply the economic aspect, as you've acknoweledged yourself by pointing out the cultural trends of less exercise, etc.. Your claim that my opinions are only a promotion of this video and its maker is entirely speculative on your part, and not worth any further
paleopeneyes 2 years ago
It is not purely speculative when your answers display that you do not have the basic knowledge of chemistry, biology or mathematics to conduct an independent analysis. You fight tooth and nail against the basic chemical facts of what constitutes HFCS, and the validity of any use of statistics and probability to an absurdity. There is nothing wrong with skepticism, but a skeptic can realize when they don't have an argument. When you "believe" regardless of the facts it has become paranoia.
batigol47 2 years ago
I've repeatedly demonstrated my superior knowledge of chemistry biology and mathematics, as compared to yours. Your cynical manipulation of these sciences is entirely transparent. It is you who's fighting tooth and nail against the basic chemistry behind HFCS, in your reluctance to give credence to the fact that HFCS is unique from either sucrose or fructose, in that it is an INVENTED, PATENTED substance. statistics are very valid, and so is your obvious manipulation and distortion of them.
paleopeneyes 2 years ago
Your superior math that doesn't know that the mean and the arithmetic average are the same or the meaning of units? Your superior chemistry that does not understand that HFCS is merely a suspension of a certain ratio of glucose and fructose molecules in water?
Your chemistry that does not understand that the only difference between hfcs and any other glucose fructose suspension (like apple and orange juice) is plant that originally formed the sugar? Econ? Patents exist on ALL sugar refinement.
batigol47 2 years ago
HFCS is not the result of a refinement process, but of a production process. Nice try though.
"the only difference between hfcs and any other glucose fructose suspension (like apple and orange juice) is plant that originally formed the sugar"
To claim that the only difference between the man-made concoction of HFCS and apple/organge juice is the plant used to produce it, reflects a hopeless ignorance of basic chemistry, and basic common sense. There are many differences between fruit juice
paleopeneyes 2 years ago
Do tell what those differences are then. I can't wait to hear them. Don't pull the semantic juice v. syrup either, because you know damn well what was intended.
HFCS is absolutely the result of a refinement process you dolt. It is the REFINEMENT of corn syrup. You can't be that stupid can you? Seriously, for your own sake you should just delete that one and the multiple mean/average ones...
batigol47 2 years ago
You should delete every moronic statement you've made, the ones I've explicitly pointed out, and I'm sure I've missed a couple along the way, so just about every one of your comments. The artificial adding of enzymes and the processing that follows distinguishes HFCS's production from the refining process of beet or cane sugars. You probably know this and are pretending not to. If not I feel bad for you. I like how you've latched onto my use of the word "dolt"though. Go back and check your
paleopeneyes 2 years ago
I am still waiting for the statement I made that was wrong, nor do I recall you using the word dolt. The time you tried to point out my inaccuracies you were grossly wrong, such as mean/a. average, composition of HFCS, HFCS not being refined.
The "artificial" adding of an enzyme is used in a host of other production processes, and is not substantially different from a wide variety of other products, and you continue to ignore the addition of "artificial" substances to ALL sugar refinements.
batigol47 2 years ago
You've made quite a few incorrect statements. One of the most blatant was your claim that HFCS is no different from other sugars. There are ample reasons why HFCS is different and worse than table sugar. HFCS reduces the activity of your insulin receptors, which is among the reasons why, many experts believe, that HFCS can be conclusively linked to diabetes. HFCS is exclusively made with genetically modified corn. This debunks any claim of HFCS being natural. HFCS prvents the bodys
paleopeneyes 2 years ago
Would you like to back that up with evidence? Here is one that contradicts you:
PMID: 18469239
Fructose, relative to glucose, is associated with higher insulin resist., but sucrose has more fructose in it than all but HFCS 90.
All corn is genetically modified. Do you know what corn was like before western farming? I bet not. You are simply taking issue with how science has accelerated the process.
So, how many more times are you going to err in claiming I have made "incorrect statements"?
batigol47 2 years ago
"All corn is genetically modified." Add that one to the list.
I'm not being sarcastic. I'm honestly asking. What on earth are you talking about? This statement is so obviously false as to not require any explanation on my part.
In regards to your half-hearted response to my listing of some of the reasons why HFCS is worse than table sugar: Your claims ignore the fact that HFCS is by far our #1 source of fructose. While sucrose does have more fructose, the simple fact is that we consume
paleopeneyes 2 years ago
PRESENT A STUDY. Just one supporting your claim that consensus says HFCS is particular and peculiar in its detrimental effects.
I actually just gave you all of the relevant studies on Pubmed. I didn't even mention that before, because I wanted to see if you would actually try to reply.
The source of fructose is IRRELEVANT. Economics is NOT a biological argument against HFCS especially since your argument is that it is WORSE for you than sucrose. We have already been through this.
batigol47 2 years ago
exponentially less sucrose than we do HFCS. Another finer point you've clumsily glossed over in your weak defense of HFCS.
paleopeneyes 2 years ago
Do you even know what exponentially means? It is particularly ironic that you would make a "finer point" argument with such obvious hyperbole.
As to genetically modified, I am following the same logic you use for the use of alcohol. It is quite apparent that you do not understand genetics and the history of the domestication of crops either. Do you really want to argue the semantics with me? Or just accept that modifying the genes of plants is what we have done for 10000 years?
batigol47 2 years ago
For the record: average american HFCS intake is roughly 26 Kg. Average refined sugar (cane and beets) is about 22 Kg. For this to be an exponential difference the average HFCS intake would have to be 484 Kg. For it to be be truly geometric it would require an intake of 44 kg HFCS. That is a ratio of 11:13 or roughly a 46%/54% split in intake.
batigol47 2 years ago
"Or just accept that modifying the genes of plants is what we have done for 10000 years?"
And you had just mentioned semantics. Just when I thought you couldn't get any more laughable and self-defeating. Obviously the genetic modification to which I was referring is the modern, gene-splicing, laboratory variety, and not the process of selective breeding, you jackass. The studies I would cite are the same ones you have, as you still seem to have missed the point that we consume much more
paleopeneyes 2 years ago
Obviously I was pointing out that your limitations on what genetic modification are "artificial" to use your own terms and show a basic misunderstanding of how genetics work.
I just gave you the numbers from the American Heart association on sugar consumption and just how wrong you are. You want to discuss how you do not understand basic mathematical terminology and usage some more?
batigol47 2 years ago
But apparently you do just want to argue the semantics. You don't have any other argument to make.
batigol47 2 years ago
The arguments are just being reiterated at this point. I've presented you with a list of reasons why HFCS is both different and more dangerous. If you stubbornly refuse to acknowledge them that's your problem. Your insistent separation of the economic and the biological factors that speak against HFCS is unwarranted, as there is a point at which they bleed together. FOR EXAMPLE: the REASON HFCS is consumed more IS BECAUSE IT'S CHEAPER. The amount of consumption is obviously relevent.
paleopeneyes 2 years ago
It is not unwarranted and I have explained why. The intake of sucrose is not significantly less than that of HFCS, and there is nothing to suggest a reduction in HFCS would not result in an increase in sucrose just as the reverse has been true. Biologically, studies show there is no difference in how they are used by the body. Statistically the Hg contamination is negligible. Your arguments are based around unfounded paranoia of advanced science resulting from a basic lack of understanding.
batigol47 2 years ago
You're negating the fundamental reason WHY HFCS has displaced sucrose in terms of intake. It's precisely because of its pricetag. Removing HFCS will not make table sugar cheaper. Your arguments are based around a reactionary and irrational deification of statistics that has no basis in reality. You reflect exactly the type of docile acceptance of sub-par dietary practices that is hoped for by the monied interests behind such products as HFCS.
paleopeneyes 2 years ago
HFCS than we do sucrose. People consume more fructose through HFCS than they do from sucrose. You're absolutely correct that it is fructose that is linked to damage of insulin receptors, and you're absolutely WRONG for IGNORING the fact that OUR #1 SOURCE OF FRUCTOSE IS HFCS. Are you even aware that the H and the F in HFCS stands for HIGH FRUCTOSE? Source of fructose is NOT irrelevant. this statement is ludicrous. Obviously one would want very much to determine the primary source of intake
paleopeneyes 2 years ago
The source is irrelevant if the only argument you are making is the economic one, which is the source of consumption differences. The numbers do not support a claim that sucrose would not replace HFCS in short order with any subtraction of HFCS from products. You still have made absolutely no argument supporting a biological/metabolic difference between HFCS and sucrose, which has been the center of your contention the entire time.
batigol47 2 years ago
Therefore, SOURCE is relevant, since the source sheds vast amounts of light on the economic side of the problem, which is the enabler of these high intakes of HFCS. You're mistaken about my 'contention the entire time.' Go back and read your comments. You took it upon YOURSELF to respond to my criticism of the commercial with an insistance that I explain the health risks associated with HFCS. I stated my preference to stay focused on one point at a time, but that didn't interest you. So I
paleopeneyes 2 years ago
proceeded to articulate to you, as best as possible from my admittedly laymen's perspective, the unique health hazards created or exacerbated by HFCS. You then responded by a childish and, frankly, nerdy focus on the minutia, rather than the undeniable core of my arguments, which you know deep down are correct, hence your focus on side issues like the definition of mean/average.
paleopeneyes 2 years ago
I was even willing to concede econ, despite it being entirely speculative and not supported by the numbers, but even then you couldnt let go of the other two patently inaccurate "core points" .
My details are right, ergo your conclusions are wrong. Fact is that youve gotten precious little correct in this entire discourse. You havent presented a single study that supports your claims and it's ludicrous that you would argue pointing out your errors in detail is somehow deleterious to my argument.
batigol47 2 years ago
Your original "core points":
"tests have revealed that approximately 49% of America's supply of HFCS is potentially contaminated with mercury. Aside from that there is the considerable evidence that HFCS is much more dangerous that sugar when it comes to the potential to trigger diabetes"
Both are proven incorrect. The first is a) wrong (45%) and b.) a gross misuse of stats as I showed in detail. The second is proven incorrect by biological testing as shown by the studies I posted.
batigol47 2 years ago
You stated correctly that fructose is the suspected culprit in reduced insulin receptor function. But you've failed to acknowledge that HFCS, as a CHEAPER SOURCE OF FRUCTOSE, is obviously a bigger risk factor than table sugar. Combine this with the common sense fact that it's just cheaper, and it becomes extremely difficult to see what basis your defense of HFCS has.
paleopeneyes 2 years ago
I just gave the numbers on consumption of the two. 46% v. 54%. That is a negligible difference in an economic argument, because it does not suggest that anything but our artificial market is keeping sucrose down. We have tariffs on sucrose and government subsidies for HFCS. Remove HFCS and the demand for sweet is not suddenly going to change. Sucrose will merely replace it. Ergo unless there is a biological difference it is not relevant. The issue here is the DEMAND for sweet from the public.
batigol47 2 years ago
I disagree that a full 8% is negligible in economic terms. But setting that aside, it is still fundamentally true that it is cheaper to produce HFCS than it is to produce table sugar. This fact remains true, regardless of government subsidies or tariffs. You seem to be asserting that the populace's demand for sugar preceded the development of HFCS., whereas I'm asserting that the development of HFCS is really just a SYMPTOM of the trend to feed as many people as possible as cheap ingredients
paleopeneyes 2 years ago
It is not fundamentally true. It is a product specifically of the US' personal resources. We have a climate better suited for producing corn than beets or cane. It is actually cheaper to produce beet sugar. The difference is transportation costs and particularly import tariffs. Now you could blame that on our corporations if you like.
batigol47 2 years ago
But transportation and other expenses must be taken into account, therefore corn is still the cheaper crop to invest in. Also, corns versatility versus beets must be taken into account. In other words, it would be a wiser decision to produce corn, rather than beets because there are a million and one ways to sell corn. it's used in everything from HFCS to gasoline, whereas the uses for beets are much more limited. I'm not trying to make some grandiose argument, like "avoid HFCS and you'll
paleopeneyes 2 years ago
It is a wiser crop for us, but that has little relevance to the production of HFCS. We could be making more corn products for feed and ethanol instead if we were to lower the tariffs. The corn farming businesses WILL NOT let that happen as higher prices are better for them as the recent increase in ethanol has proven.
It remains that HFCS is not in any way different from sucrose in human practice.
batigol47 2 years ago
As much as I would love to continue this I have to get up at the crack and am done for the night. Til tomorrow.
batigol47 2 years ago
live forever" ..just taking issue with your claim that it's not any different from other, more traditional sources of sugar.
paleopeneyes 2 years ago
*WITH as cheap ingredients as possible, that should read.
paleopeneyes 2 years ago
Your details are wrong. Your regurgitation of statistics is accurate, I'll give you that. but to be sure, your interpretation, and also your failure to accept the limitation of said statistics is your fault. In your attempt to "point out errors in detail" you entirely miss points made and focus instead on perhaps semantics (like how you respond to the fact that all HFCS is genetically modied by claiming that 'genetic modification' goes back millenia, which is true only in a technical sense)
paleopeneyes 2 years ago
Your only "critique" of my stats was your erroneous claim of misuse of average v. Mean. And then you ask why I have to bring it up? How do you not understand that if your details are wrong your points are as well?
I do not simply focus on those semantics. I follow YOUR lines of argumentation ie ignore that catalysts are used in the refining of all sucrose; that "extraction" is somehow not a refinement; that because we've been refining sucrose longer it is ok or somehow substantially different.
batigol47 2 years ago
"how do you not understand that if your details are wrong your points are as well?"
You've just corrected my statistic of 49% to 45%. Does this change my point that NEARLY HALF our HFCS supply has been found to be contaminated with mercury? No. All it does is provide you with another hair to split. Nice try. Your choice of the word catalyst is telling. Namely because the enzymes artificially added to HFCS serve an entirely different purpose from the "catalysts" to which you refer.
paleopeneyes 2 years ago
NO, it is merely another point showing your lack of detail that is exhibited throughout your arguments. Notice how you didn't talk about the rest of that point which was how that 45% is a gross misuse of statistics that does not describe the actual consequences of that contamination which was in all but one sample measured in NANOGRAMS.
Oh really? Those enzymes serve a purpose different from accelerating a chemical process? lol
batigol47 2 years ago
For example, sulfur dioxide, chlorine, or ammonium bisulfite may be added during the refining of table sugar, but this is merely to serve as a disinfectant, and has no relevance to the actual production of the sugar. The same cannot be said about the enzymatic processing performed during HFCS production.
paleopeneyes 2 years ago
disinfectants are not catalysts nimrod.
batigol47 2 years ago
If I were to use your hyper-literal standards of definition, disinfectants are most certainly catalysts of the process, as they play a role in its completion. What enzymes are artificially added to table sugar?
paleopeneyes 2 years ago
Covered this already. Inorganic catalysts are added to table sugar in order to speed the process. Methanol, sodium methoxide and amberlite. They make the refinement produce a higher yield of sucrose. I did not say that enzymes were used, but all enzymes are catalysts, and your argument is one of contamination. Each inorganic catalyst added is a potential contaminant. I would expect there are processes for using enzymes as well, they just arent cost efficient.
batigol47 2 years ago 2
Valid point, aside from the fact that mercury contamination has been conclusively linked to HFCS, and not to table sugar.
paleopeneyes 2 years ago
In practice the mercury contamination has already been addressed, because many processes for HFCS do not offer that possibility, and legislation has been passed to eliminate it from the production of the caustic soda as well (the origin of said contamination). Seriously there are many other much more threatening sources of Hg: air in many parts of our country; foods: rice has been shown to contain higher levels of hg and other env. toxins than HFCS by exponential degrees (still short of tuna).
batigol47 2 years ago
Let me rephrase that. catalytic disinfectants are a type of disinfectant, but those are not the catalysts to which I was referring.
batigol47 2 years ago
production of the hormone Leptin, which is the hormone that makes you feel full and therefore stop eating. It has been found to be contaminated with mercury. Provide a quote in which I make an incorrect statement regarding mean vs average. My reiteration of basic statistics was in response to your obvious overreliance, and your primary defense seems to be the distraction of bringing up things utterly irrelevant to HFCS, since your advocacy of the substance is entirely unfounded.
paleopeneyes 2 years ago
No my use of statistics was in response to your inaccuracies about the level and importance of Hg contamination in HFCS. They showed how inconsequential that contamination is relative to standards and in comparison to another common source. They were entirely appropriate and your responses showed that you lacked even rudimentary understanding of units of measurement, statistics and probability.
batigol47 2 years ago
comments. You start using it alot after I do hahah. Another obvious difference is that through the industrial manufacturing of HFCS, the opportunities for contamination (of mercury, for example), and overall poor production standards are exacerbated and amplified, much more so than compared to other forms of sugar, as the cheap price tag of HFCS only helps to encourage the "cheaper the better" mentality of its producers.
paleopeneyes 2 years ago
The enzymes are organic. The catalysts used in producing sugar are not: amberlite, methanol, milk of lime and sodium methoxide. Each of those presents an "opportunity for contamination" as you put it. Fact is you do not know the processes you are talking about, reiterating the lack of any scientific substance to your argument. Again, you have to show a specific reason why the production of HFCS is particularly detrimental The hg argument does not hold water and you haven't presented any others.
batigol47 2 years ago
I'm not sure what your point is, by mentioning that the added anzymes are organic. If this is in reference to the fact that no products labeled organic contain HFCS, I'm not sure how it pertains. There are many widely acknowledged reasons why HFCS is detrimental, just as there is the same for table sugar. But HFCS is also widely acknowledged to be worse. Why you've decided to contradict this professional consensus I have no idea.
paleopeneyes 2 years ago
It is not widely acknowledged to be worse by scientists. It is only done so by alt-health bloggers.
Doctors argue that over-consumption of fructose is a problem but that it is an economic issue and does not single out HFCS for any other reason from other fructose sources (including sucrose) other than it is inexpensive.
If you think otherwise, present a scientific study singling out HFCS from plain fructose.
Ones that don't:
PMID: 15051594
PMID: 19064539
PMID: 19136981
PMID: 17234503
batigol47 2 years ago
and HFCS this fact is obvious. You're either very stupid, or hoping that your audience is, in order to believe your nonsense.
paleopeneyes 2 years ago
to a product with HFCS is a new and statistically just as likely an opportunity to be exposed to mercury, as compared to tuna, which even by non diabetics, is encounter drastically less than HFCS, so much so that even with a higher average mercury level, the amount of exposure is likely to be greater from something as pervasive as HFCS. You're incorrect about vegetarians. Although people who eat fish or chicken often call themselves vegetarians, this fact is actually resented by the majority
paleopeneyes 2 years ago
Statistically, NO IT IS NOT as likely an opportunity for exposure. Do you really not understand how probability works? Remember the part where I told you that the numbers I was giving were the highest EVER recorded? Over half the samples, including ALL of those made in a particular process were COMPLETELY clean. Of the rest, the majority were under.025 ug. Do you have any idea how small an amount that is?
Whether it is resented or not, fact is it is a sizable part of that population.
batigol47 2 years ago
As I've already explained, I'm skeptical of the figures for contamination in HFCS, and more and impartial testing is badly needed. You can cite the statistics all you want, the point I'm making is that there's no reason to trust them, as much more are needed, not to mention the many examples of scientists and researchers fudging data to please their funders. Until more studies are conducted there's no logical reason to trust the figures. Aside from that, I still think your comparison to tuna
paleopeneyes 2 years ago
is flawed, since the sheer number of encounters with possibly contaminated HFCS is more considerable that you think. For example, picture a kid who happens to not care for tuna, but is still exposed to, let's say, 12 sources of HFCS per day. This would be typical for a lower social status kid with a relatively poor diet. This would add up to roughly 4380 individual instances of exposure to HFCS, versus 0 for tuna, in this particular hypothetical instance.
paleopeneyes 2 years ago