3 ms·

I don’t remember the study but HFCS is no more harmful than regular sugar. It’s just that HFCS causes mitochondrial disturbances in your liver when overfeeding.

I don’t remember the study but HFCS is no more harmful than regular sugar. It’s just that HFCS causes mitochondrial disturbances in your liver when overfeeding. I’d suspect it would be the same for sugar. Banning and restriction is not the solution, it’s education. Especially when one is poor, one is not educated about the impact food choices have on their health. That’s why there is a high degree of correlation between being poor and obesity.

mschuster91 8y ago
> Especially when one is poor, one is not educated about the impact food choices have on their health. That’s why there is a high degree of correlation between being poor and obesity. In addition, healthy fresh food is expensive, especially more expensive than pre-made food, and poor persons are more likely to work two jobs and/or to raise a child alone, which means that they do not have the time to prepare a meal themselves. Taxing sugar is nothing more than another tax on being poor or otherwise disadvantaged in life.
- jamienicol 8y ago
  I don't have data, and realise my experience is limited as someone who can afford healthy fresh food. But I've noticed the sugar tax in the UK has led to a reduction in sugar in many items, rather than just passing the cost on to the consumer.
bad_user 8y ago
I don't know about "mitochondrial disturbances", however fructose gets metabolized only in the liver, so very unlike glucose or saturated or monounsaturated fat. Fructose competes in the liver with other nutrients and in large quantities it becomes toxic, leading to a fatty liver, or a fatty pancreas. And as I wrote elsewhere, a fatty liver or a fatty pancreas are the best predictors of obesity or diabetes. Our body is very efficient at processing glucose, so glucose is very different from fructose. This is why honey is much healthier than table sugar, because of the glucose/fructose ratio. Also "the dose makes the poison". Eating a banana or two per day won't screw your liver, but drinking Coca Cola daily will.
keymone 8y ago
Fructose is literally poison. Also not being more harmful than sugar is not much of a compliment, there are very few things that brought more harm to humans than sugar.

mschuster91 8y ago

> Especially when one is poor, one is not educated about the impact food choices have on their health. That’s why there is a high degree of correlation between being poor and obesity. In addition, healthy fresh food is expensive, especially more expensive than pre-made food, and poor persons are more likely to work two jobs and/or to raise a child alone, which means that they do not have the time to prepare a meal themselves. Taxing sugar is nothing more than another tax on being poor or otherwise disadvantaged in life.

jamienicol 8y ago
I don't have data, and realise my experience is limited as someone who can afford healthy fresh food. But I've noticed the sugar tax in the UK has led to a reduction in sugar in many items, rather than just passing the cost on to the consumer.

bad_user 8y ago

I don't know about "mitochondrial disturbances", however fructose gets metabolized only in the liver, so very unlike glucose or saturated or monounsaturated fat. Fructose competes in the liver with other nutrients and in large quantities it becomes toxic, leading to a fatty liver, or a fatty pancreas. And as I wrote elsewhere, a fatty liver or a fatty pancreas are the best predictors of obesity or diabetes. Our body is very efficient at processing glucose, so glucose is very different from fructose. This is why honey is much healthier than table sugar, because of the glucose/fructose ratio. Also "the dose makes the poison". Eating a banana or two per day won't screw your liver, but drinking Coca Cola daily will.

keymone 8y ago

Fructose is literally poison. Also not being more harmful than sugar is not much of a compliment, there are very few things that brought more harm to humans than sugar.