Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ...
5
6
7
8
LastLast
  1. #121
    Quote Originally Posted by Didactic View Post
    Cane sugar is sucrose, not fructose.
    sucrose is fructose and glucose in a really weak bond. Honey is fructose and glucose and a smaller percentage of other sugars disolved in water just like HFCS, in about the same ratios.

  2. #122
    Quote Originally Posted by Didactic View Post
    Cane sugar is sucrose, not fructose.
    You were quoting HFCS - "High Fructose"

  3. #123
    Quote Originally Posted by clampy View Post
    Pretty sure it doesn't matter where its from - Fructose is Fructose. Fructose in your honey is the same as in your HFCS, the only difference is the corn syrup part.
    C12H22O11
    vs
    C6H12O6

    chemically very different.
    It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed, the hands acquire shakes, the shakes become a warning.

    -Kujako-

  4. #124
    Humanity is consuming far more sugar in their day-to-day diets (in any form, including HFCS) than in previous generations. Here's some more info that I found interesting:

    http://eatingacademy.com/nutrition/s...s-sugar-part-i

  5. #125
    Quote Originally Posted by Kujako View Post
    C12H22O11
    vs
    C6H12O6

    chemically very different.
    no, fructose is always C6H12O6

  6. #126
    Quote Originally Posted by Gamdwelf View Post
    no, fructose is always C6H12O6
    But cane sugar is not fructose... it is Sucrose C12H22O11.
    It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed, the hands acquire shakes, the shakes become a warning.

    -Kujako-

  7. #127
    Quote Originally Posted by Kujako View Post

    C12H22O11 <-- Corn Syrup part
    vs
    C6H12O6 <-- Fructose part.
    Of course those 2 are different, but that's not what I was talking about.

    ---------- Post added 2013-01-04 at 06:54 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Kujako View Post
    But cane sugar is not fructose... it is Sucrose C12H22O11.
    This thread is about HFCS, Corn syrup WITH high fructose.
    Last edited by Clampy; 2013-01-04 at 05:59 PM.

  8. #128
    Quote Originally Posted by Kujako View Post
    But cane sugar is not fructose... it is Sucrose C12H22O11.
    which is immidiately broken up in your body into 1 fructose and 1 glucose molecule making sucrose 50:50 fructose glucose.

  9. #129
    Quote Originally Posted by clampy View Post
    This thread is about HFCS, Corn syrup WITH fructose.
    Which is being compared to cane sugar, which is sucrose.
    It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed, the hands acquire shakes, the shakes become a warning.

    -Kujako-

  10. #130
    Quote Originally Posted by Kujako View Post
    Which is being compared to cane sugar, which is sucrose.
    because they have similar amounts of sweetness and are almost identical chemically.

  11. #131
    Quote Originally Posted by Gamdwelf View Post
    well that's the choice you get to make do you want your food to have a tiny amount of pesticide in it, or to be chewed up by bugs?
    If that's the case, how did people eat before we began using pesticides in the 20th century? Here's how it shakes out-

    Step 1: As people shift from rural life to urban life, farmers have to feed more people. Methods are developed to increase efficiency.

    Step 2: The rural -> urban shift in population is more or less complete, but industrialized agriculture doesn't stop looking for ways to produce more for less.

    Step 3: In modern times, we're overproducing so much that (at least in the US) the government supplies billions of dollars in agricultural subsidies to control supply and ensure that prices don't fall below a point which is deemed profitable.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricul...price_supports - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farm_su...#United_States


    As it turns out, organic farming methods yield about 20% less crop per acre, but do so with 50% less fertilizer and 97% less pesticide. (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_produce#Yield)

    In other words, we actually do NOT have to choose between having our food showered with pesticides, or having it "chewed on by bugs". We can have the best of both worlds, just like the entire human population did in the early 20th century and earlier.

  12. #132
    Quote Originally Posted by Chiquihuite View Post
    If that's the case, how did people eat before we began using pesticides in the 20th century? Here's how it shakes out-

    Step 1: As people shift from rural life to urban life, farmers have to feed more people. Methods are developed to increase efficiency.

    Step 2: The rural -> urban shift in population is more or less complete, but industrialized agriculture doesn't stop looking for ways to produce more for less.

    Step 3: In modern times, we're overproducing so much that (at least in the US) the government supplies billions of dollars in agricultural subsidies to control supply and ensure that prices don't fall below a point which is deemed profitable.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricul...price_supports - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farm_su...#United_States


    As it turns out, organic farming methods yield about 20% less crop per acre, but do so with 50% less fertilizer and 97% less pesticide. (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_produce#Yield)

    In other words, we actually do NOT have to choose between having our food showered with pesticides, or having it "chewed on by bugs". We can have the best of both worlds, just like the entire human population did in the early 20th century and earlier.
    yeah and you can only use organic fertilizer so your food is covered in poop and costs 10 times as much.

  13. #133
    Quote Originally Posted by Gamdwelf View Post
    yeah and you can only use organic fertilizer so your food is covered in poop...
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_fertilizer
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compost

    They don't simply slather poop on there and call it a day. The process is far more refined than that. Many organic fertilizers don't even contain "poop".

    Even so, would you rather eat Roundup weed-killer or processed organic waste?

    ...and costs 10 times as much.
    That's a tremendous exaggeration. The actual cost increase is in the 10%-40% range.
    (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_produce#Economics)
    It's also fair to speculate that they'll become more affordable over time as organics gain in popularity and more suppliers jump on the bandwagon.

  14. #134
    Quote Originally Posted by Chiquihuite View Post
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_fertilizer
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compost

    They don't simply slather poop on there and call it a day. The process is far more refined than that. Many organic fertilizers don't even contain "poop".

    Even so, would you rather eat Roundup weed-killer or processed organic waste?



    That's a tremendous exaggeration. The actual cost increase is in the 10%-40% range.
    (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_produce#Economics)
    It's also fair to speculate that they'll become more affordable over time as organics gain in popularity and more suppliers jump on the bandwagon.
    yes id rather ingest some pesticide than get e. coli

  15. #135
    Quote Originally Posted by Gamdwelf View Post
    yes id rather ingest some pesticide than get e. coli
    Did you even read the links I referenced? Proper composting fully removes pathogens such as E. Coli.

  16. #136
    Quote Originally Posted by Chiquihuite View Post
    Did you even read the links I referenced? Proper composting fully removes pathogens such as E. Coli.
    Don't put poop on my food!

  17. #137
    Quote Originally Posted by Gamdwelf View Post
    Don't put poop on my food!
    It helps to realize that by the time it reaches your mouth, it has long since ceased to be anything resembling poop. I mean, the water on the Earth has been recycled many times over the course of billions of years. Next time you take a drink of water, you may well be drinking what was once Dinosaur urine.

    Anyway, back on topic. I'm personally quite wary of HFCS, but science has yet to produce evidence that it's any more harmful than sucrose, ounce for ounce.

    One thing to consider, though, is that the existence and use of HFCS likely makes sugary products more accessible/affordable and may contribute to health problems by sheer volume. More HFCS -> people consume more sweetened foods/drinks -> more health issues.

  18. #138
    Its empty calories, it gives you no positive nutritional benefit.

  19. #139
    Quote Originally Posted by Shennanigans View Post
    Its empty calories, it gives you no positive nutritional benefit.
    energy which is positive in the right quantity.

  20. #140
    Quote Originally Posted by Gamdwelf View Post
    energy which is positive in the right quantity.

    There are many many better option for energy.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •