4 ms·

HFCS has nearly the same balance of fructose/glucose as sucrose does. Since you mention soft-drinks, that uses HFCS 55, which means 55% of the sugar is fructos

HFCS has nearly the same balance of fructose/glucose as sucrose does. Since you mention soft-drinks, that uses HFCS 55, which means 55% of the sugar is fructose. Apple juice, by comparison is 60% fructose. Unless the claim is that it takes about 10% more sucrose based soda to fill you up (which would be lost in the noise were I to try it), I'm not sure your claim holds water.

KMag 4y ago
Exactly. Lots HFCS is pretty bad for you. Lots of table sugar is also pretty bad for you. From the evidence I've seen, we should be railing against all quickly absorbed sugars, not specifically HFCS. Unfortunately, the naturistic fallacy is insanely common.
- smegsicle 4y ago
  the naturalistic argument is very often on the right track in the complex, widely misunderstood science of diet sugar in nature is almost always paired with fiber, separating them makes the sugar much more harmful
  - KMag 4y ago
    The "rapidly absorbed" qualifier is an allusion to this. Fiber has several benefits, one being blunting the spike in blood sugar by slowing absorption. Some foods are healthiest when unprocessed (other than the minimal processing involved in harvesting and shipping), but bioavailability of nutrients in others is greatly improved by cooking and/or other processing. Certainly, the safety of most meats is greatly improved by cooking.
    - spion 4y ago
      The point of the naturalistic argument is actually a good one. We keep pretending we understand all the mechanisms and yet we get baffled over and over when we do enough processing and even though the ingredients are all still there it turns out there was one more thing we weren't aware of that completely changes how we react to the food.
      - smegsicle 4y ago
        trying to guess what vitamins or whatever are missing from a demonstrably deficient diet is not going to beat a known wholesome diet, even if your worldview for some reason contests the existence of a 'known' 'wholesome' diet it's hubris really
        spion 4y ago
        I mean, I would really like us to fully understand nutrition, and I'm optimistic that we eventually will... its just that we don't, right now. Not really.

KMag 4y ago

Exactly. Lots HFCS is pretty bad for you. Lots of table sugar is also pretty bad for you. From the evidence I've seen, we should be railing against all quickly absorbed sugars, not specifically HFCS. Unfortunately, the naturistic fallacy is insanely common.

smegsicle 4y ago
the naturalistic argument is very often on the right track in the complex, widely misunderstood science of diet sugar in nature is almost always paired with fiber, separating them makes the sugar much more harmful
- KMag 4y ago
  The "rapidly absorbed" qualifier is an allusion to this. Fiber has several benefits, one being blunting the spike in blood sugar by slowing absorption. Some foods are healthiest when unprocessed (other than the minimal processing involved in harvesting and shipping), but bioavailability of nutrients in others is greatly improved by cooking and/or other processing. Certainly, the safety of most meats is greatly improved by cooking.
  - spion 4y ago
    The point of the naturalistic argument is actually a good one. We keep pretending we understand all the mechanisms and yet we get baffled over and over when we do enough processing and even though the ingredients are all still there it turns out there was one more thing we weren't aware of that completely changes how we react to the food.
    - smegsicle 4y ago
      trying to guess what vitamins or whatever are missing from a demonstrably deficient diet is not going to beat a known wholesome diet, even if your worldview for some reason contests the existence of a 'known' 'wholesome' diet it's hubris really
      - spion 4y ago
        I mean, I would really like us to fully understand nutrition, and I'm optimistic that we eventually will... its just that we don't, right now. Not really.