I find zero evidence to dismiss HFCS as just like sugar. The devils are often in the details. While I overwhelmingly agree that overall sweetener consumption of all types is the main problem, HFCS simply is NOT sugar.
It doesn't have the same ratio, it isn't bonded the same, even though JohnP makes the claim that it isn't significant, I think the jury is very much out. It is 55% fructose...or is it? Manufactuers can do what they want even though they are 'supposed' to stop at 55%.
Is it more addictive than sugar? Many studies are showing it is. Does it get processed differently, a 'fructose metabolism' so to speak? Many studies are showing so. Can it contain mercury? Yes. Can it contain other unknown stuff> Yes. There are spikes on chemical analysis that no one is sure about.
The SAD diet is the problem. I have no problem with that and too much sweetners being the major take away lesson. But thinking HFCS is just like sugar seems just wrong to me with all the contradictory evidence. At the very least WAY too premature to claim.
How do you know it makes little difference? You are just assuming HFCS makes little difference. Again the jury is very much out on that and you are making as many assumptions and jumps to conclusions as anyone claiming HFCS is more damaging than you think.
Last edited by diamondgeog : 09-26-2013 at 07:48 AM.