3 ms·

Why do people always focus on the fringe science of HFCS and seed oils? There is a valid argument about the loads of salt and sugar in modern processed foods b

Why do people always focus on the fringe science of HFCS and seed oils? There is a valid argument about the loads of salt and sugar in modern processed foods but no, we attack something that does not have as strong scientific evidence.

mensetmanusman 2y ago
To be fair the first point on sugar is obvious.
- infecto 2y ago
  To be fair, "specifically high fructose corn syrup". The OP specifically called out HFCS not sugar.
- stetrain 2y ago
  Right, but high sugar content isn't better than high HFCS content. Both are bad. The main issue with HFCS seems to be how cheap and subsidized it is which leads to being a major ingredient in a large number of products that should just have less or no added sugar.
pton_xd 2y ago
> Why do people also focus on the fringe science of HFCS and seed oils? I'd argue similarly but take the opposite position, why support HFCS and seed oils? What are their positive attributes that contribute to a healthy body? They're cheap, that's it. We deserve higher quality food. Let's subsidize something else.
- infecto 2y ago
  Why? Because there is no strong evidence that supports HFCS and seed oils contribute to the obesity epidemic but there is loads of evidence that poorer outcomes are coming from the loads of processed foods filled with hidden sugar (of any kind) and salt. Its about focusing your energy. You have populations eating loads of sugar and salt but focusing on a tail risk, HFCS and seed oils. Most of the seed oil science is fringe though I am sure there is some extreme tail risk. Same with HFCS. Its more worth the time focusing on what really matters, its calories, sugar and salt. Those are no easy task either.
  - pton_xd 2y ago
    A major enabler of all of those processed foods are exactly HFCS and seed oils due to being so shelf-stable. And abundance of those ingredients at cheap prices is part of the problem. Maybe it's the calories, sugar and salt, maybe it's the HFCS and seed oils binding it all together. Either way the processed food industry is churning out poison.
    - infecto 2y ago
      All I am reading is fringe ideas. Sugar and HFCS are both shelf-stable. Price plays a role but thats largely a US problem with Ag policies that inflate the price of sugar. Without those policies we would see sugar in the same amount. Seed oil science is all bunk junk science, similar to HFCS. I am sure there is some measurable tail risk but its nothing compared to the generalized risk of calories, sugar and salt (regardless of sugar types).
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > Maybe it's the calories, sugar and salt, maybe it's the HFCS and seed oils binding it all together. Either way the processed food industry is churning out poison You see why one might want more evidence than "maybe" to ban a major food product? Particularly since having effected that ban, one would wait to measure the results, waiting time in which one might have deployed substantiated policies.
koolba 2y ago
> Why do people also focus on the fringe science of HFCS and seed oils? I think both are easy to see examples of ingredients that seem out of place from what our bodies have evolved to eat for millenia. When you read about how things like canola oil (i.e., rapeseed oil) are so high in erucic acid that they're toxic and must be extracted with hexane to make them edible, it's reasonable to question whether we should be eating them at all. Versus something like olive oil (literally just squeezed olives) or butter (milk from cow).
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > both are easy to see examples of ingredients that seem out of place from what our bodies have evolved to eat for millenia You might as well add everything farmed, raised or processed to that list. Appeals to nature don't work in nutrition [1]. We've been starving and malnourished since the Neolithic [2]. And almost everything in our food supplies we consider "natural" is engineered. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature [2] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9460423/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9460423/
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    I think a more effective appeal to nature would be that need to return to a near starvation diet.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > a more effective appeal to nature would be that need to return to a near starvation diet Also increases CVD and mortality [1]. And causes your descendants to be fat [2]. [1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7792411/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7792411/ [2] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36507560/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36507560/
      - s1artibartfast 2y ago
        I was expecting you to link the transgenerational study from polish famines during world war II, so thanks for some references I haven't seen before. That said, you have to admit that they are a hell of a lot of variables at play when you're talking about populations that self-reported food insecurity or underwent literal famine. That said, if you are worried about the next generation, it'd be interesting to compare the magnitude of transgenerational effect from simply being raised in a household with obese parents in the usa. I imagine it's much larger but I'm not on a pc to look it up right now. Last, if I were to lazily steel Man my appeal to nature, I doubt our Neolithic ancestors yo-yo'd back and forth between skinny and obese generations due to calorie restrictions.

mensetmanusman 2y ago

To be fair the first point on sugar is obvious.

infecto 2y ago
To be fair, "specifically high fructose corn syrup". The OP specifically called out HFCS not sugar.
stetrain 2y ago
Right, but high sugar content isn't better than high HFCS content. Both are bad. The main issue with HFCS seems to be how cheap and subsidized it is which leads to being a major ingredient in a large number of products that should just have less or no added sugar.

pton_xd 2y ago

> Why do people also focus on the fringe science of HFCS and seed oils? I'd argue similarly but take the opposite position, why support HFCS and seed oils? What are their positive attributes that contribute to a healthy body? They're cheap, that's it. We deserve higher quality food. Let's subsidize something else.

infecto 2y ago
Why? Because there is no strong evidence that supports HFCS and seed oils contribute to the obesity epidemic but there is loads of evidence that poorer outcomes are coming from the loads of processed foods filled with hidden sugar (of any kind) and salt. Its about focusing your energy. You have populations eating loads of sugar and salt but focusing on a tail risk, HFCS and seed oils. Most of the seed oil science is fringe though I am sure there is some extreme tail risk. Same with HFCS. Its more worth the time focusing on what really matters, its calories, sugar and salt. Those are no easy task either.
- pton_xd 2y ago
  A major enabler of all of those processed foods are exactly HFCS and seed oils due to being so shelf-stable. And abundance of those ingredients at cheap prices is part of the problem. Maybe it's the calories, sugar and salt, maybe it's the HFCS and seed oils binding it all together. Either way the processed food industry is churning out poison.
  - infecto 2y ago
    All I am reading is fringe ideas. Sugar and HFCS are both shelf-stable. Price plays a role but thats largely a US problem with Ag policies that inflate the price of sugar. Without those policies we would see sugar in the same amount. Seed oil science is all bunk junk science, similar to HFCS. I am sure there is some measurable tail risk but its nothing compared to the generalized risk of calories, sugar and salt (regardless of sugar types).
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > Maybe it's the calories, sugar and salt, maybe it's the HFCS and seed oils binding it all together. Either way the processed food industry is churning out poison You see why one might want more evidence than "maybe" to ban a major food product? Particularly since having effected that ban, one would wait to measure the results, waiting time in which one might have deployed substantiated policies.

koolba 2y ago

> Why do people also focus on the fringe science of HFCS and seed oils? I think both are easy to see examples of ingredients that seem out of place from what our bodies have evolved to eat for millenia. When you read about how things like canola oil (i.e., rapeseed oil) are so high in erucic acid that they're toxic and must be extracted with hexane to make them edible, it's reasonable to question whether we should be eating them at all. Versus something like olive oil (literally just squeezed olives) or butter (milk from cow).

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> both are easy to see examples of ingredients that seem out of place from what our bodies have evolved to eat for millenia You might as well add everything farmed, raised or processed to that list. Appeals to nature don't work in nutrition [1]. We've been starving and malnourished since the Neolithic [2]. And almost everything in our food supplies we consider "natural" is engineered. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature [2] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9460423/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9460423/
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  I think a more effective appeal to nature would be that need to return to a near starvation diet.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > a more effective appeal to nature would be that need to return to a near starvation diet Also increases CVD and mortality [1]. And causes your descendants to be fat [2]. [1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7792411/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7792411/ [2] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36507560/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36507560/
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      I was expecting you to link the transgenerational study from polish famines during world war II, so thanks for some references I haven't seen before. That said, you have to admit that they are a hell of a lot of variables at play when you're talking about populations that self-reported food insecurity or underwent literal famine. That said, if you are worried about the next generation, it'd be interesting to compare the magnitude of transgenerational effect from simply being raised in a household with obese parents in the usa. I imagine it's much larger but I'm not on a pc to look it up right now. Last, if I were to lazily steel Man my appeal to nature, I doubt our Neolithic ancestors yo-yo'd back and forth between skinny and obese generations due to calorie restrictions.