3 ms·
Almost certainly due to lower obesity rates, rather than the negligible difference between normal sugar and HFCS.
by klbarry 15y ago
Almost certainly due to lower obesity rates, rather than the negligible difference between normal sugar and HFCS.
- grannyg00se 15y agoFructose is much more damaging than glucose. So HFCS is much more damaging than regular sugar (glucose-fructose). And more importantly, the widespread use of HFCS is a major concern. It's too cheap, it's too legal, and it's a toxin. There's absolutely no use for it in our bodies. Yes, obesity is the problem. HFCS can be blamed as a significant contributor to the obesity issue. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM
- losvedir 15y agoAgreed on fructose being the more damaging component. However, sucrose (regular table sugar) is one glucose and one fructose, so 50% fructose. HFCS, however, is typically 55% fructose, and I believe used in about the same quantity. So not that different. The real issue is simply amount consumed, and not what form it was in.
- wycats 15y agoHFCS and regular sugar have a very similar proportion of glucose:fructose. The kind of HFCS used in soft drinks is 55% fructose and 42% glucose, while sucrose (sugar) is 50% fructose and 50% glucose. The kind of HFCS used in baked products is 42% fructose and 53% glucose.
- wycats 15y agoThe problem with HFCS is not its biological impact. It's the economic impact. By heavily subsidizing corn, we have made sugar (via HFCS) incredibly cheap, which makes it easy to use as an additive.