3 ms·
Does the type of sugar, or type of fat not play a part here? HFCS is notorious for the bad effects on the body, versus something like honey. Same for the Intu
by philjohn 4y ago
Does the type of sugar, or type of fat not play a part here?
HFCS is notorious for the bad effects on the body, versus something like honey.
Same for the Intuit, simpler animal fats vs hydrogenated "trans" fats?
I feel like the key difference in their diets is it's not overly processed and full of things we've decided to put in there for cost reasons (corn subsidies making HFCS cheaper than cane sugar, and trans fats are cheaper than more expensive animal products).
- dcolkitt 4y agoTrans fats are indeed unhealthy, but 1) it's been nearly a decade since they were basically removed from fast food, and 2) they don't contribute to obesity. As for HFCS, there's basically zero evidence that they're a major contributor to obesity versus other types of sugar. (In fact, honey consumed by the Hazda has almost the same balance as sugar as HFCS). We have multiple points of evidence to counteract this. 1) Mexico uses substantially less HFCS compared to other types of sugar, but Mexican obesity rates are as high as the US. 2) HFCS, and sugar in general, consumption has declined over the past 20 years. Yet obesity continues to increase. 3) HFCS was widely consumed in the 1980s, when the obesity rate was de minims.
- spirit557 4y agoThere is almost no difference between sugar and HFCS. Sugar is 50/50 glucose/fructose. HFCS is maybe 45/55 glucose/fructose. Fructose can only be metabolized by your liver into inflammatory fat cells in your belly. Glucose can be metabolized by every cell in the body. HFCS would only be worse because it has more fructose but it's barely any worse than sugar. The whole hysteria over HFCS is a joke because sugar is nearly just as bad.