5 ms·

While I agree with you about HFCS, it does strike me as slimy to rename a product in order to trick people specifically trying to avoid that product into contin

While I agree with you about HFCS, it does strike me as slimy to rename a product in order to trick people specifically trying to avoid that product into continuing to consume it.

tptacek 16y ago
They're rebranding it to "sugar". Good for them. Sugar is the problem. Singling out HFCS actually does everyone a disservice, by making them think that if they just seek out "HFCS-free" foods they'll be fine. No they won't.
- lftl 16y ago
  In my practical experience at the grocery store, avoiding HFCS will at least accidentally lead you to a lower sugar diet. This is mostly due to the fact that at a typical grocery store you won't be able to find many of the more processed goods that don't have HFCS in it (there is literally 1 brand of bread out of 10-15 at the local Publix without HFCS), so you'll basically be forced to buy more raw vegetables, fruits, meats, etc.
- Goladus 16y ago
  I thought this too, until I read this: http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S26/91/22K07/ http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S26/91/22K07/ A Princeton University research team has demonstrated that all sweeteners are not equal when it comes to weight gain: Rats with access to high-fructose corn syrup gained significantly more weight than those with access to table sugar, even when their overall caloric intake was the same.
  - nopassrecover 16y ago
    And yet, assuming the mice on table sugar weren't more hyped up than those on HCFS, we still perpetuate the leaky abstraction of calories in, calories out.
    - tptacek 16y ago
      While I'm also interested in the leakiness of "cals in cals out", the study in question isn't that inconsistent with the model; HFCS was obesogenic in rats, but that's a fuzzy term that in this case seems to mean in part "when fed HFCS, rats ate more."
      - nopassrecover 16y ago
        The parent stated they ate the same amount of calories.
  - tptacek 16y ago
    This is one very recent very controversial rat study which relies on the group's previous observation that rats whose diets are supplemented with sucrose solution eat less to compensate for the sucrose, but don't eat less to compensate for HFCS. Look, to avoid a rathole argument that neither of us are really qualified to have, let's just stipulate: HFCS is evil. I completely agree. Regardless of any distinctive biochemical affects, it is clearly a tool used by the food industry to amp up palatability (and thus consumption and thus profit margin) in processed foods. But if we fixate on HFCS, we're just going to be victimized by the whatever sugar the industry replaces HFCS with.
    - sophacles 16y ago
      An interesting personal observation to that controversial study: When I drink a regular hfcs-sweetened cola, it really has no noticable affect on my hunger level, on my fullness level, nothing. On the other hand when I drink one of the can sugar varieties, it actually does sate some hunger. Further, the cane sugar varieties make me feel full after drinking one. I am not unique in this observation... but it is still anecdotal, take it as you will.
      - tptacek 16y ago
        Consuming anything heavily sweetened --- or even high in refined carbohydrates of any sort --- should play havoc with your appetite, simply because of the way insulin works.
    - Goladus 16y ago
      I'm not even prepared to agree that HFCS is evil. Just that there are reasons to differentiate it from sucrose, and sugar is essentially synonymous with sucrose. "Corn sucrose" is clearly not accurate, and "corn sugar" means essentially that. (Also, prefacing a comment with "look," is superfluous)
  - tokenadult 16y ago
    Earlier HN thread: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1629082 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1629082
    - tptacek 16y ago
      From the article in that thread: In fact, sucrose — even “natural” cane sugar — is 50% fructose once it is digested and absorbed. While this is 20% less than the fructose content of HFCS 55, food manufacturers need to use less (about 20% less) HFCS 55 to get the same sweetness, so it’s a wash as far as fructose content.
- ajscherer 16y ago
  I think you're correct, but the ends don't justify the means. If someone wants to avoid eating HFCS, even for the most ignorant and misguided reasons in the world, it is still unethical to change how HCFS is listed in the product ingredients in order to trick them into eating it.
  - tptacek 16y ago
    What's unethical is the promotion of the idea that sweetened food is healthful if it contains natural sugars. The more HFCS is conflated with "natural" sugar, to my mind, the better off we are.
- rubashov 16y ago
  What's even more interesting is that zero calorie sweeteners are just as bad, stevia or other-such. They still produce weight gain. Simply tasting sweet produces insulin spikes.
  - crgwbr 16y ago
    Yep- Zero calorie sweeteners (especially Aspartame) are much worse than HFCS or Cane Sugar. When Aspartame breaks down it releases Methyl Alcohol (anti-freeze) into your body. It's also been shown to have a similar effect as MSG regarding brain damage. HFCS isn't much better though. The problem is that Fructose is normally found in fruit and therefore eaten with fiber, which slows the digestion and controls the insulin spike. Fructose alone digests much faster than sucrose.
    - tptacek 16y ago
      "A similar effect as MSG". That's... terrifying. I better stop eating all those tomatoes.

While I agree with you about HFCS, it does strike me as slimy to rename a product in order to trick people specifically trying to avoid that product into continuing to consume it.

tptacek 16y ago

They're rebranding it to "sugar". Good for them. Sugar is the problem. Singling out HFCS actually does everyone a disservice, by making them think that if they just seek out "HFCS-free" foods they'll be fine. No they won't.

lftl 16y ago
In my practical experience at the grocery store, avoiding HFCS will at least accidentally lead you to a lower sugar diet. This is mostly due to the fact that at a typical grocery store you won't be able to find many of the more processed goods that don't have HFCS in it (there is literally 1 brand of bread out of 10-15 at the local Publix without HFCS), so you'll basically be forced to buy more raw vegetables, fruits, meats, etc.
Goladus 16y ago
I thought this too, until I read this: http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S26/91/22K07/ http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S26/91/22K07/ A Princeton University research team has demonstrated that all sweeteners are not equal when it comes to weight gain: Rats with access to high-fructose corn syrup gained significantly more weight than those with access to table sugar, even when their overall caloric intake was the same.
- nopassrecover 16y ago
  And yet, assuming the mice on table sugar weren't more hyped up than those on HCFS, we still perpetuate the leaky abstraction of calories in, calories out.
  - tptacek 16y ago
    While I'm also interested in the leakiness of "cals in cals out", the study in question isn't that inconsistent with the model; HFCS was obesogenic in rats, but that's a fuzzy term that in this case seems to mean in part "when fed HFCS, rats ate more."
    - nopassrecover 16y ago
      The parent stated they ate the same amount of calories.
- tptacek 16y ago
  This is one very recent very controversial rat study which relies on the group's previous observation that rats whose diets are supplemented with sucrose solution eat less to compensate for the sucrose, but don't eat less to compensate for HFCS. Look, to avoid a rathole argument that neither of us are really qualified to have, let's just stipulate: HFCS is evil. I completely agree. Regardless of any distinctive biochemical affects, it is clearly a tool used by the food industry to amp up palatability (and thus consumption and thus profit margin) in processed foods. But if we fixate on HFCS, we're just going to be victimized by the whatever sugar the industry replaces HFCS with.
  - sophacles 16y ago
    An interesting personal observation to that controversial study: When I drink a regular hfcs-sweetened cola, it really has no noticable affect on my hunger level, on my fullness level, nothing. On the other hand when I drink one of the can sugar varieties, it actually does sate some hunger. Further, the cane sugar varieties make me feel full after drinking one. I am not unique in this observation... but it is still anecdotal, take it as you will.
    - tptacek 16y ago
      Consuming anything heavily sweetened --- or even high in refined carbohydrates of any sort --- should play havoc with your appetite, simply because of the way insulin works.
  - Goladus 16y ago
    I'm not even prepared to agree that HFCS is evil. Just that there are reasons to differentiate it from sucrose, and sugar is essentially synonymous with sucrose. "Corn sucrose" is clearly not accurate, and "corn sugar" means essentially that. (Also, prefacing a comment with "look," is superfluous)
- tokenadult 16y ago
  Earlier HN thread: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1629082 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1629082
  - tptacek 16y ago
    From the article in that thread: In fact, sucrose — even “natural” cane sugar — is 50% fructose once it is digested and absorbed. While this is 20% less than the fructose content of HFCS 55, food manufacturers need to use less (about 20% less) HFCS 55 to get the same sweetness, so it’s a wash as far as fructose content.
ajscherer 16y ago
I think you're correct, but the ends don't justify the means. If someone wants to avoid eating HFCS, even for the most ignorant and misguided reasons in the world, it is still unethical to change how HCFS is listed in the product ingredients in order to trick them into eating it.
- tptacek 16y ago
  What's unethical is the promotion of the idea that sweetened food is healthful if it contains natural sugars. The more HFCS is conflated with "natural" sugar, to my mind, the better off we are.
rubashov 16y ago
What's even more interesting is that zero calorie sweeteners are just as bad, stevia or other-such. They still produce weight gain. Simply tasting sweet produces insulin spikes.
- crgwbr 16y ago
  Yep- Zero calorie sweeteners (especially Aspartame) are much worse than HFCS or Cane Sugar. When Aspartame breaks down it releases Methyl Alcohol (anti-freeze) into your body. It's also been shown to have a similar effect as MSG regarding brain damage. HFCS isn't much better though. The problem is that Fructose is normally found in fruit and therefore eaten with fiber, which slows the digestion and controls the insulin spike. Fructose alone digests much faster than sucrose.
  - tptacek 16y ago
    "A similar effect as MSG". That's... terrifying. I better stop eating all those tomatoes.