France bans ketchup in cafeterias [Archive]

N6YG

10-06-2011, 10:13 PM

I think its a good move. First and foremost the use of ketchup on good food is disgusting. Only the most barbaric and uncouth would pour ketchup on good food. Secondly, it dilutes France's culture of fine cuisine by introducing cheap American fast food trends which are best avoided. Lastly, it's bad nutrition as ketchup is used to mask the poor quality of cheap fast foods, something that should be shunned in France.

Not sure if you are being sarcastic or not, If not it looks like we actually agree on something. Saying that ketchup is very poor nutritionally is an understatement. Especially when you consider the fact that each teaspoon of Ketchup contains at least a teaspoon of sugar..

This post brings me to an interesting story. Back when times where more prosperous I used to host a big New Years eve party. It was an annual event where I would invite many of my close friends and employees.

During the peak of these parties I was roasting as many as 6 or 7 full 7 bone prime rib roasts. These would be seared over a very hot mesquite fire and then slow roasted in my offset trailerable BBQ pit at about 190 degrees over a hardwood fire that had been burned down to coals.

Prime Rib is very sensitive to smoke and I learned the hard way that you don't want to BBQ prime rib as you would traditional BBQ meats such as ribs or pulled pork. I also learned that you never want to see any visible smoke coming from the stack when BBQing smoke sensitive cuts such as prime rib and brisket. What I learned to do is look for an extremely faint thin blue smoke that can only be seen by shining a very bright flashlight up into the flow of air coming out of the top of the stack...

Anyhow back to the story. One year the unthinkable happened, I had invited a new employee who had brought his wife. Now as my wife served them the lady asked if we had any ketchup the room went deftly quite as everyone stopped eating and glared at her with looks of shock on their faces including her husband :shock:

Personally I was ready to take her plate and show her the door, But a very stern unapproving glare from my wife convinced me that I had better not. So as I glared back at my wife for being such a ball buster :irked: I politely informed our guest that we didn't have any ketchup on hand. She said O-Well no big deal, got any A1 ? ARGGGG Again I politely informed this barbarian that I never kept A1 sauce on hand. In fact the one and only time I have ever used A1 was at Denny's when I had the unfortunate displeasure of ordering one of their disgusting T-bone steak and egg breakfasts. I have to admit the only thing that made that steak palatable was the A1

At that point it looks as though her prime rib dinner had been spared the humiliation and disgrace of being doctored by a hack.

Then to the shock of myself and all my guests she opened up her purse and proceed to pull out a huge hand full of McDonald ketchup packages which she then barbarically used to completely smother every inch of a gorgeous, very expensive dry aged, plate of king cut prime rim which had been slow roasted to perfection. In the eyes of my guests and myself It was the equivalent of doctoring a van Gogh or a da Vinci with a crayon :cry:

Anyhow needless to say, my friends and I had plans for revenge at next year party :evil: Instead of serving her prime rib like everyone else I had prepared her a nice plate of steamed turkey dogs accompanied by a side of dollar store mac and cheese :yuck: Once again my wife's strong objections prevented my friends and I from carrying out our plans. :irked:

As you can guess once again she smothered her prime rib dinner with mounds of cheap ketchup which she continued to do every year until the downturn in the economy forced us to sell our large towable BBQ pit and sadly put an end to our large annual New Years Eve party.

Unfortunate Now days I can barely afford Prime rib on New Years for my family and maybe one or two close friends and at that I have to save all year to pay for it. Long gone is the expensive dry aged prime rib that I had to special order months in advance.

Nowadays all I can afford is the cheap prime rib from Costco and even thats becoming so expensive that I might have to substitute our once a year Prime rib dinner party with a New Years Turkey dinner party. Unfortunately I fear that once Turkey becomes to expensive the only thing left will be Soylent Green ;)

KG4CGC

10-06-2011, 10:28 PM

Fries are better when they're called chips and smothered in malt vinegar and salt anyway.
I don't always eat fries, but when I do,I prefer tartar sauce with fries with a smattering of cocktail sauce.

N6YG

10-06-2011, 11:12 PM

Especially when it's served with battered, deep-fried fish and one of those beverages featured in your avatar photo.

Oh yeah !!! I love Malted Vinegar :yum: :yum: This thread really turned to be very coincidental. What are the chances that these posts would be made on the very night that I made home made Tempura battered fish and chips. As I type this I'm snacking on the last 4 tempura battered shrimp. Unfortunately we ran out of malted Vinegar so I'm stuck using a bit of cocktail sauce.

Tonight I tried something new and used tilapia. The fish was given to my wife by one of her friends who's husband absolutely despises fish. Apparently the rest of the family loves fish but because of him and his selfishness the only time they can eat it is when they eat out without him. Withe the economy the way it is they can't afford to eat out so she thought she would bake some at home. It turns out that not only won't he let them cook it at home he refuses to let them even bring it in the house.

Anyhow It actually turned out surprisingly good and as such I plan on doing it again very soon.

NQ6U

10-06-2011, 11:14 PM

I often use tilapia when I make fish tacos. I prefer cod, but tilapia is good enough and a lot cheaper.

N6YG

10-06-2011, 11:31 PM

I often use tilapia when I make fish tacos. I prefer cod, but tilapia is good enough and a lot cheaper.

Yeah I too prefer cod in dishes like that. I will say that I was pleasantly surprised at how well the Tilapia came out. I have a feeling that we will be using it a lot more especially considering that it's much cheaper and much more plentiful and easy to find. Even though the fillets are a bit thin it still worked out surprising well battered and deep fried using a tempura beer batter. I'll definitely be doing it again.

n2ize

10-06-2011, 11:45 PM

Not sure if you are being sarcastic or not, If not it looks like we actually agree on something. Saying that ketchup is very poor nutritionally is an understatement. Especially when you consider the fact that each teaspoon of Ketchup contains at least a teaspoon of sugar..

This post brings me to an interesting story. Back when times where more prosperous I used to host a big New Years eve party. It was an annual event where I would invite many of my close friends and employees.

During the peak of these parties I was roasting as many as 6 or 7 full 7 bone prime rib roasts. These would be seared over a very hot mesquite fire and then slow roasted in my offset trailerable BBQ pit at about 190 degrees over a hardwood fire that had been burned down to coals.

Prime Rib is very sensitive to smoke and I learned the hard way that you don't want to BBQ prime rib as you would traditional BBQ meats such as ribs or pulled pork. I also learned that you never want to see any visible smoke coming from the stack when BBQing smoke sensitive cuts such as prime rib and brisket. What I learned to do is look for an extremely faint thin blue smoke that can only be seen by shining a very bright flashlight up into the flow of air coming out of the top of the stack...

Anyhow back to the story. One year the unthinkable happened, I had invited a new employee who had brought his wife. Now as my wife served them the lady asked if we had any ketchup the room went deftly quite as everyone stopped eating and glared at her with looks of shock on their faces including her husband :shock:

Personally I was ready to take her plate and show her the door, But a very stern unapproving glare from my wife convinced me that I had better not. So as I glared back at my wife for being such a ball buster :irked: I politely informed our guest that we didn't have any ketchup on hand. She said O-Well no big deal, got any A1 ? ARGGGG Again I politely informed this barbarian that I never kept A1 sauce on hand. In fact the one and only time I have ever used A1 was at Denny's when I had the unfortunate displeasure of ordering one of their disgusting T-bone steak and egg breakfasts. I have to admit the only thing that made that steak palatable was the A1

At that point it looks as though her prime rib dinner had been spared the humiliation and disgrace of being doctored by a hack.

Then to the shock of myself and all my guests she opened up her purse and proceed to pull out a huge hand full of McDonald ketchup packages which she then barbarically used to completely smother every inch of a gorgeous, very expensive dry aged, plate of king cut prime rim which had been slow roasted to perfection. In the eyes of my guests and myself It was the equivalent of doctoring a van Gogh or a da Vinci with a crayon :cry:

Anyhow needless to say, my friends and I had plans for revenge at next year party :evil: Instead of serving her prime rib like everyone else I had prepared her a nice plate of steamed turkey dogs accompanied by a side of dollar store mac and cheese :yuck: Once again my wife's strong objections prevented my friends and I from carrying out our plans. :irked:

As you can guess once again she smothered her prime rib dinner with mounds of cheap ketchup which she continued to do every year until the downturn in the economy forced us to sell our large towable BBQ pit and sadly put an end to our large annual New Years Eve party.

Unfortunate Now days I can barely afford Prime rib on New Years for my family and maybe one or two close friends and at that I have to save all year to pay for it. Long gone is the expensive dry aged prime rib that I had to special order months in advance.

Nowadays all I can afford is the cheap prime rib from Costco and even thats becoming so expensive that I might have to substitute our once a year Prime rib dinner party with a New Years Turkey dinner party. Unfortunately I fear that once Turkey becomes to expensive the only thing left will be Soylent Green ;)

It might be my Bourbaki upbringing but, if I have any form of steak I must have ketchup on it. In my book beef requires ketchup or some type of condiment. But on most other dishes no.

N6YG

10-07-2011, 12:30 AM

It might be my Bourbaki upbringing but, if I have any form of steak I must have ketchup on it. In my book beef requires ketchup or some type of condiment. But on most other dishes no.
Well it must be my Greek upbringing that has taught me too employ seasonings in my cooking that accent and enhance the natural flavors of food rather then thick sauces that overpower and dominate. As such I have found that a spritz of fresh lemon juice on a well prepared steak accents the natural flavors while not over powering them to the point of being the sole dominating flavor.

On the other hand about the only people whom I've met who use A1 sauce or ketchup on steaks are people who don't seem to like steak. More often then not these are the same people who over cook their steaks to the point of being flavorless hunks of dried out shoe leather.

Now I will admit that A1 has a unique, interesting yet extremely overpowering flavor. I find that it goes well with dishes that by themselves have absolutely no flavor such as fried or boiled Tofu.

As far as ketchup is concerned, It's yet another overpowering condiment which completely masks all the natural flavor of any dish it's used on. About the only dish I find it suitable for is a slice of dried out meat loaf.

kc7jty

10-07-2011, 12:46 AM

American ketchup/catsup would be ok if it didn't have so gd much sweetener in it. Get reduced sweetener ketchup at the health food store and it's $3.99 for 12 oz.

suddenseer

10-07-2011, 03:30 AM

Unfortunately I fear that once Turkey becomes to expensive the only thing left will be Soylent Green ;)You can put ketchup on that.

N6YG

10-07-2011, 04:15 AM

American ketchup/catsup would be ok if it didn't have so gd much sweetener in it. Get reduced sweetener ketchup at the health food store and it's $3.99 for 12 oz.

Thats a good suggestion and something I had never really thought of. Probably because I never realized that reduced sweetener ketchup existed. I've always loved Italian food and do like tomato based sauce's. My only real complaint regarding ketchup is the disgusting amount of sugar/sweetener it contains. My palette has always more strongly favored savory vs sweet and has always been very sensitive to sugars content.

As a young boy I rarely if ever ate candy or sweets and almost never drank soda pop. Which probably explains why at my age I not only still have all my origanal teeth but they are still in great shape. On the other hand, give me a slice of Spanakopita (Greek Spinach Pie) made with spinach, onions, feta, eggs, dill, and phyllo dough and I'm in heaven. Heck when I was a boy I loved spinach. While all the other kids were drowning their spinach in gobs of butter I was lightly seasoning mine with a bit of dill, salt and lemon. Like I said people need to learn to accent the natural flavors of food instead of drowning them in over powering sauces intended to hind the natural flavors. While the right amounts of Dill, Lemon and Salt will magically transform spinach into a dish that even the most picky child will devour. Not only will they scarf it down they will ask for seconds.

Of course having a palette which is sensitive to sugars never stopped me from learning to bake. I bake all sorts of Greek breads, confectioneries and pastries ........ Although I rarely eat what I bake and give most of it away. I do it more for the art and challenge of perfection and my friends and neighbors love it when I'm experimenting with a recipe. Everyone loves my Baklava and I'm always amazed when our guests eat two and three pieces because one bite is enough for me. Now I do like Koulourakia with my coffee in the morning. These are traditionally an easter style cookie, but I make them year round. I like them because they are very lightly sweetened with just a hint of almond and citrus which iis perfect for dipping in your morning coffee.

Damn It's 2 am and now I'm craving Koulourakia. I guess I'm off to the store, I'll surprise my wife in the morning with some fresh baked Koulourakia and coffee.

N6YG

10-07-2011, 04:29 AM

You can put ketchup on that.

Yup I'm sure ketchup would do wonders for making Soylent Green a bit more palatable. By the look on Charlton Heston face I'm sure he was thinking the same thing.

BTW To those of you who claim that Global Warming is a new concept created by Al Gore. I present the movie Soylent Green. Soylent Green was a sci-fi movie clearly based on concerned over the possible effects of Global Warming. Obviously it was intended to bring awareness by over dramatizing the effects. For you nay sayers I offer you this excerpt from the script.

You know. When I was a kid...
...food was food.
Before our scientific magicians poisoned the water...
...polluted the soil. Decimated plant and animal life.
Why. In my day. You could buy meat anywhere.
Eggs. They had. Real butter. Fresh lettuce in the stores.
I know. Sol. You told me before.

Why. In my day. You could buy meat anywhere.
Eggs. They had. Real butter. Fresh lettuce in the stores.
I know. Sol. You told me before.
How can anything survive in a climate like this?
A heat wave all year long.
A greenhouse effect. Everything is burning up.
Okay. Wise guy.
Eat some Soylent Green and calm down.
I finished it last night. I was hungry. Damn it.

But how can this be? Soylent Green is an early 1970 movie and according to the pundits Global warming is an Al gore invention.

Full transcript located here (http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/s/soylent-green-script-transcript-heston.html)

WØTKX

10-07-2011, 05:38 AM

I like a little mayo on my fries...

suddenseer

10-07-2011, 05:39 AM

American ketchup/catsup would be ok if it didn't have so gd much sweetener in it. Get reduced sweetener ketchup at the health food store and it's $3.99 for 12 oz.You are correct sir. To make matters worse most American ketchup including Heinz puts high fructose corn syrup in the mix. I have removed that poison from my home. Hunt's has taken the lead, and removed that poison from their product.

suddenseer

10-07-2011, 05:40 AM

I like a little mayo on my fries...My ex does that as well, he is weird too.....in a good way.

WØTKX

10-07-2011, 05:49 AM

I'm reminding you of your ex?

http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2008/2/27/alborlandcats128485986910788750.jpg

:snicker:

suddenseer

10-07-2011, 05:57 AM

I'm reminding you of your ex?

http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2008/2/27/alborlandcats128485986910788750.jpg

:snicker:I stand amazed. The similarities are the mayo in the fries, and a few kinks like reading materials. That is way too cool, and funny as well.:rofl:

KC2UGV

10-07-2011, 06:59 AM

You are correct sir. To make matters worse most American ketchup including Heinz puts high fructose corn syrup in the mix. I have removed that poison from my home. Hunt's has taken the lead, and removed that poison from their product.

What is the difference between High-Fructose Corn Syrup, and the Fructose that is inside of corn? Or, Apples?

They both look like this:
C6H12O6

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/61/D-Fructose_cyclic.png

And, HFCS also has this: Glucose
C6H12O6

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/06/Glucose_chain_structure.svg

Both are just simple monosaccarhides, present in foods naturally.

W3WN

10-07-2011, 07:53 AM

It might be my Bourbaki upbringing but, if I have any form of steak I must have ketchup on it. In my book beef requires ketchup or some type of condiment. But on most other dishes no.Too many are not taught the finer things in life when it comes to cuisine. I know of many people who overuse ketchup and yellow mustard, in part because they've never been taught better, in part because they're so used to the taste of those two condiments (more specifically, the real cheap versions available at fine fast food establishments everywhere... and yes, "fine fast food establishments" IS an oxymoron) that they can't envision doing without.

Ketchup has it's place. On top of a hamburger, on the side of a hot dog (although there are many who would disagree with THAT!), on some bland scrambled eggs... but it should not be used as a universal condiment.

On prime rib? "Barbarian" is too good a word for that poor heathen. (And you should have served her the mac & cheese)

But with that in mind... the outright banning of ketchup across the board just struck me as more than a bit absurd. And it won't stop anyone who really wants some, as ketchup packets are easy enough to acquire.

Still, Lorsque la propriété ketchup est criminalisée, seuls les criminels propre ketchup

W3WN

10-07-2011, 07:56 AM

Thats a good suggestion and something I had never really thought of. Probably because I never realized that reduced sweetener ketchup existed. I've always loved Italian food and do like tomato based sauce's. My only real complaint regarding ketchup is the disgusting amount of sugar/sweetener it contains. My palette has always more strongly favored savory vs sweet and has always been very sensitive to sugars content. < snip> That's one thing I've become much more aware of for the last year. It's shocking to see how many food items have large amounts of sugar (including high fructose corn syrup and the rest) in them. Try and avoid it... it gets tough, and it can be expensive.

N6YG

10-07-2011, 07:56 AM

What is the difference between High-Fructose Corn Syrup, and the Fructose that is inside of corn? Or, Apples?

They both look like this:
C6H12O6

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/61/D-Fructose_cyclic.png

And, HFCS also has this: Glucose
C6H12O6

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/06/Glucose_chain_structure.svg

Both are just simple monosaccarhides, present in foods naturally.

Many things are present in nature that aren't good for you, Just because it's natural doesn't mean its safe. Heck hemlock is 100 percent natural and it will kill you..

The problem with HFCS is actually the Fructose. The human body does not tolerate high levels of fructose well. Contrary to industry sponsored propaganda by lobbyist groups such as the "center for Consumer Freedom" which was exposed as an industry front group linky (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_Consumer_Freedom)

Quite a bit of very credible research has shown that the body tolerates large amounts of sucrose much better then large amounts of High fructose corn syrup.

Of course consuming large quantities of sucrose isn't good for you either but it's been shown to be much safer then consuming large amounts of fructose.

Don't take my word for it heres a quote from a Princeton University research team. which can be found here (http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S26/91/22K07/)

rats on a diet rich in high-fructose corn syrup showed characteristic signs of a dangerous condition known in humans as the metabolic syndrome, including abnormal weight gain, significant increases in circulating triglycerides and augmented fat deposition, especially visceral fat around the belly. Male rats in particular ballooned in size: Animals with access to high-fructose corn syrup gained 48 percent more weight than those eating a normal diet.

"These rats aren't just getting fat; they're demonstrating characteristics of obesity, including substantial increases in abdominal fat and circulating triglycerides," said Princeton graduate student Miriam Bocarsly. "In humans, these same characteristics are known risk factors for high blood pressure, coronary artery disease, cancer and diabetes.

And then there's this article which includes a quote from Peter Havel, associate professor of nutrition at the University of California, Davis. the full article can be found here (http://www.epinions.com/content_4312834180)

Now about HFCS. It has genetically-modified enzymes for better processing and probably genetically modified corn. It also has a little more fructose than glucose in it while sugar, sucrose, is all glucose, which isn’t to say that sugar isn’t harmful in large quantities. Sugar will fuel cancer cells like healthy cells, deplete us of vitamins/minerals like calcium that leads to osteoporosis, create tooth decay, compromise our immune system and create extra cholesterol that hardens arteries and fattens the liver. HFCS, I’ve found out, with its high fructose, will likely make us fat.

“Fructose appears to behave more like fat with respect to the hormones involved in body weight regulation," explains Peter Havel, associate professor of nutrition at the University of California, Davis. "Fructose doesn't stimulate insulin secretion. It doesn't increase leptin production or suppress production of ghrelin (unlike glucose). That suggests that consuming a lot of fructose, like consuming too much fat, could contribute to weight gain." Whether it actually does do this is not known "because the studies have not been conducted," said Havel.

Of course this was written before the Princeton university study was released and as you read the Princeton university study fully confirmed professor Peter Havel earlier comments.

PA5COR

10-07-2011, 08:37 AM

Favorite snack here....

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTvvcqG8mg5sI4h174tba4R4CsnhV02f widgQ_mHJpp4D3KI7Nwlw

N6YG

10-07-2011, 08:39 AM

That's one thing I've become much more aware of for the last year. It's shocking to see how many food items have large amounts of sugar (including high fructose corn syrup and the rest) in them. Try and avoid it... it gets tough, and it can be expensive.

Several years ago after I injured my knee I was pretty much immobile and unable to ride my bike or exercise. So as you can guess I started to gain significant weight. During this time I became very concerned about my health. I decided that I should take control and start eating like a diabetic or heart patient before the Doctors forced me do it out of necessity. It was one hell of a learning experience. I began to eat like a diabetic about 4 days a week with two cheat days and one reacclimatization day. The reacclimatization day was simply the day after my two cheat days where I would slow down and gradually go back to my 4 day diet.

Talk about expensive holly cow, I was eating less yet my food bill skyrocketed. When they tell you eating healthy is expensive they're not joking. Whats interesting is there was recently an article in the New York times that made the claim that it was a myth "that eating health was more expensive expensive then eating junk food" Of course the writer carefully picked the most expensive items on the McDonald's menu and avoided the much more popular dollar menu and specials and compltly avoided all the cheap junk food at the grocery store. He also completely avoided to include all the expenses associated with having to stock up a kitchen and pantry for home cooking. He also failed to include all the time involved in preparation, cooking and clean up. Not to mention all the time needed to clip coupons and do the shopping. Which would be a serious concern for a single mom working 2 jobs to support two kids on slave labor wages.

While I'm sure it's not a big deal to a highly paid NYT's writer but to a single mom coming home after a 14 hours in a sweat shop to spend 3 more hours slaving away sweating in the kitchen might just be a big concern. For her it's probably a hell of a lot less easer to simply open up a couple of cans of inexpensive generic SpaghettiOs. After all she still got to get the kids bathed and off to bed..

His premises was that all these people who eat fast food or junk food are lazy good for nothing slobs who don't work and to lazy to cook. When in reality it's much more probable that the majority are single parents working multiple jobs who are simply to tired after slaving 14 hours to come home and cook.

While I was never a junk food fanatic my experience completely contradicted his claim. I've always cooked at home yet making the transition to healthier cooking dramatically increased my food costs and I'm not even shopping organic, holly crap who can afford that ?

KC2UGV

10-07-2011, 08:57 AM

Many things are present in nature that aren't good for you, Just because it's natural doesn't mean its safe. Heck hemlock is 100 percent natural and it will kill you..

The problem with HFCS is actually the Fructose. The human body does not tolerate high levels of fructose well. Contrary to industry sponsored propaganda by lobbyist groups such as the "center for Consumer Freedom" which was exposed as an industry front group linky (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_Consumer_Freedom)

Quite a bit of very credible research has shown that the body tolerates large amounts of sucrose much better then large amounts of High fructose corn syrup.

Of course consuming large quantities of sucrose isn't good for you either but it's been shown to be much safer then consuming large amounts of fructose.

Don't take my word for it heres a quote from a Princeton University research team. which can be found here (http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S26/91/22K07/)

And then there's this article which includes a quote from Peter Havel, associate professor of nutrition at the University of California, Davis. the full article can be found here (http://www.epinions.com/content_4312834180)

Of course this was written before the Princeton university study was released and as you read the Princeton university study fully confirmed professor Peter Havel earlier comments.

So, basically both studies said you'll get fat if you consumer too many calories... That's a no-brainer, irrespective of the source of calories.

Neither demonstrated anything about HFCS being a "poison".

W3MIV

10-07-2011, 09:13 AM

Fries are better when they're called chips and smothered in malt vinegar and salt anyway.

From my experience, the Brits seem to consume as much catsup -- or ketchup -- as do the Americans. It was as omnipresent in every RA or RAF establishment cafeteria that I visited -- but, of course, nearly half a century has passed since those days. Perhaps the Brits have elevated their culinary sights since then. Somehow, I doubt it.

W3MIV

10-07-2011, 09:14 AM

I should have added that I agree about the malt vinegar and salt, however.

KG4CGC

10-07-2011, 09:24 AM

You are correct sir. To make matters worse most American ketchup including Heinz puts high fructose corn syrup in the mix. I have removed that poison from my home. Hunt's has taken the lead, and removed that poison from their product.
Industries are still trying to convince us that "Sugar is Sugar" but the slight differences are something that our bodies CAN detect and tolerate in different ways. Thus, we have medication for mysterious ailments that have developed over the last 25 or so years which I believe are due to HFCS derived from GMO corn. The sharp rise in Diabetes and many neurological disorders that were unheard of in before the 80s, I believe can be linked to factory food production and tampering with the core genetic make up of once simple crops. Please don't confuse cross breeding different species of the same crop with genetic, laboratory modification of food crops. Cross pollination and laboratory manipulation is not the same thing even though I've heard some try to make the argument that there is no difference.

Bring back Olestra™. At least we knew what we were getting into from the get go. If the symptoms and side effects are not outward and apparent, they simply won't tell you about them.

KC9ECI

10-07-2011, 10:29 AM

From my experience, the Brits seem to consume as much catsup -- or ketchup -- as do the Americans. It was as omnipresent in every RA or RAF establishment cafeteria that I visited -- but, of course, nearly half a century has passed since those days. Perhaps the Brits have elevated their culinary sights since then. Somehow, I doubt it.

The first time I was over, it was almost impossible to find the stuff in a restaurant. It's a bit more common now, but still not as universal as it is here in the US.

KG4CGC

10-07-2011, 10:44 AM

Perhaps the Brits have elevated their culinary sights since then.
Spotted Dick.

KC2UGV

10-07-2011, 10:48 AM

Industries are still trying to convince us that "Sugar is Sugar" but the slight differences are something that our bodies CAN detect and tolerate in different ways. Thus, we have medication for mysterious ailments that have developed over the last 25 or so years which I believe are due to HFCS derived from GMO corn. The sharp rise in Diabetes and many neurological disorders that were unheard of in before the 80s, I believe can be linked to factory food production and tampering with the core genetic make up of once simple crops. Please don't confuse cross breeding different species of the same crop with genetic, laboratory modification of food crops. Cross pollination and laboratory manipulation is not the same thing even though I've heard some try to make the argument that there is no difference.

Bring back Olestra™. At least we knew what we were getting into from the get go. If the symptoms and side effects are not outward and apparent, they simply won't tell you about them.

Sugar is sugar. No matter what genetic modifications you make to a plant, the fructose it makes is still fructose. Bound up in the same chemical bonds, arranged in the same manner. Same as glucose, sucrose, and sucralose. All the same thing, no matter where they come from.

It's the same nonsense as "natural nicotine" vs. "synthetic nicotine". It's all the same.

n2ize

10-07-2011, 11:12 AM

Sugar is sugar. No matter what genetic modifications you make to a plant, the fructose it makes is still fructose. Bound up in the same chemical bonds, arranged in the same manner. Same as glucose, sucrose, and sucralose. All the same thing, no matter where they come from.

It's the same nonsense as "natural nicotine" vs. "synthetic nicotine". It's all the same.

Very true and I speak from experience having "minored" in Chemistry and worked in the profession on the industrial level.. Think of plain ol' water. It doesn't matter if it's pulled up out of a stream in the middle of the woods or made in a laboratory by directly combining hydrogen and oxygen in a 2:1 ratio. Only difference if properly done the water made in the lab will be pure where the water from the mountain stream will contain dissolved impurities. The same holds true in the case of larger and more complex organic molecules. A molecule of "fructose" is the same, regardless of whether it is synthesized in a lab or in a plant.

N6YG

10-07-2011, 11:39 AM

So, basically both studies said you'll get fat if you consumer too many calories... That's a no-brainer, irrespective of the source of calories.

Neither demonstrated anything about HFCS being a "poison".

Not sure how you came to that conclusion but it's indeed a flawed conclusion. By the way I never said it was a poison;) I simply believe it significantly increases your risk of high blood pressure, coronary artery disease, cancer and diabetes.

The Princeton study clearly indicated the rats who consumed HFCS gained considerably more weight then the rats who consumed sugar. Furthermore the rats consuming HFCS where consuming a concentration that was half the amount of HFCS thats in most soft drinks. Compared that to the rats who were on plain old sugar who were consuming the same about of sugar thats in the average soft drinks. So in fact this is a double whammy and really damaging evidence that clearly suggests that HFCS posses significantly increased risk compared to plain old sugar. In fact this report was so convincing that Pepsico stopped using HFCS in its Gatorade products.

Again heres the relevant quote

The first study showed that male rats given water sweetened with high-fructose corn syrup in addition to a standard diet of rat chow gained much more weight than male rats that received water sweetened with table sugar, or sucrose, in conjunction with the standard diet. The concentration of sugar in the sucrose solution was the same as is found in some commercial soft drinks, while the high-fructose corn syrup solution was half as concentrated as most sodas

And then we have this

and this

Our findings lend support to the theory that the excessive consumption of high-fructose corn syrup found in many beverages may be an important factor in the obesity epidemic,"

The back-to-back, double whammy announcements that PepsiCo (PEP) is ditching high fructose corn syrup in Gatorade along with the results of a scathing new study from researchers at Princeton (http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S26/91/22K07/) make it official — allies of the controversial sweetener have lost the war.

And then we have this

Con Agra (CAG) is taking HFCS out of its Hunt’s ketchup, Kraft (KFT) is banishing it from Wheat Thins and you will no longer find it in Snapple drinks. It’s all in response to what food companies say is overwhelming evidence........

And then we have this much older report on human studies. That the industry seems to have tried to bury. This is the final conclusion of the study which was very in depth and much to long, Most of which was hard to follow as I'm not familiar with much of the technical and medical terminology and to be honest it put me to sleep more the once, It wasn't light reading by anyones stretch of the imagination.

To the best of my knowledge it's not available online. I learned long ago that corporate America likes to bury damaging medical reports and scientific research. As a result I also learned to start ordering hard copies after many peer reviewed studies magically disappeared off the Internet.

Anyhow I had to order my copy of this study from one of the medical journals I subscribe to. Keep in mind It's an older industry sponsored study that was done before the Princeton study. Nonetheless no matter how hard they tried to candy coat it, it was still damaging enough that they tried to bury it.

Conclusions. We reached the following conclusions: (a) The increase in VAT in subjects consuming fructose and the increase in the expression of lipogenic genes in SAT in subjects consuming glucose suggest that fructose and glucose have differential effects on regional adipose distribution. We believe that these results are novel and warrant further investigation. (b) In addition to increases of postprandial TG and fasting and postprandial apoB, we show for what we believe is the first time that fructose consumption increases plasma concentrations of fasting sdLDL, oxidized LDL, and postprandial RLP-C and RLP-TG in older, overweight/obese men and women, whereas glucose consumption does not. These changes may be associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease (30, 36, 45, 64–66). (c) Fructose consumption increased hepatic fractional DNL, and postprandial LPL activity was lower in subjects consuming fructose compared with those consuming glucose. These results suggest that both increased DNL and decreased LPL-mediated clearance contribute to fructose-induced postprandial hypertriglyceridemia. (d) Consumption of fructose at 25% of energy requirements with an ad libitum diet decreased glucose tolerance and insulin sensitivity in older overweight/obese adults compared with glucose consumption. (e) VAT accumulation and increases of 24-hour TG exposure, peak postprandial TG concentrations, and postprandial RLP-C concentrations in response to fructose consumption were more pronounced in men than in women. Consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages resulted in greater decreases in insulin sensitivity in women than in men.

Dose-response studies are needed to determine what levels of dietary fructose and HFCS and/or sucrose are associated with adverse changes of lipids and decreased insulin sensitivity in different populations.

Oh and back to the erroneous claim by manufactures that Fructose and glucose are the same in both HFCS and Sugar and that the body processes them the same .. Yeah right Not according to Princeton researchers

as a result of the manufacturing process for high-fructose corn syrup, the fructose molecules in the sweetener are free and unbound, ready for absorption and utilization. In contrast, every fructose molecule in sucrose that comes from cane sugar or beet sugar is bound to a corresponding glucose molecule and must go through an extra metabolic step before it can be utilized.

The bottom line is that in moderation both fructose and sucrose probably don't pose much of a risk. The problem is that todays commercially manufactured foods are loaded with them and the average person is not consuming them in moderation. For god sakes theres the equivalent of one teaspoon full of sugar or HFCS in every teaspoon of ketchup.

W3MIV

10-07-2011, 12:09 PM

KC2UGV

10-07-2011, 12:12 PM

Not sure how you came to that conclusion but it's indeed a flawed conclusion. By the way I never said it was a poison;) I simply believe it significantly increases your risk of high blood pressure, coronary artery disease, cancer and diabetes.

It was stated by another poster that it's "poison"...

And yes, if you consume too much sugar, you will get fat, thereby increasing your risk of high blood pressure, coronary artery disease, cancer, diabetes, and several other problems. That's not being contested by myself.

The Princeton study clearly indicated the rats who consumed HFCS gained considerably more weight then the rats who consumed sugar. Furthermore the rats consuming HFCS where consuming a concentration that was half the amount of HFCS thats in most soft drinks. Compared that to the rats who were on plain old sugar who were consuming the same about of sugar thats in the average soft drinks. So in fact this is a double whammy and really damaging evidence that clearly suggests that HFCS posses significantly increased risk compared to plain old sugar. In fact this report was so convincing that Pepsico stopped using HFCS in its Gatorade products.
[

Shocker. The rats that ate too much fructose and sucrose (Simple sugars), they gained weight. Ok?

There is much there. Simple sugars are much sweeter. Animal instinctive behavior for omni/herbivores is that the sweeter the food, the more they should eat (To stave off starvation longer). Since Fructose is sweeter than sucrose, it would make sense they would gain weight faster.

However, the fructose contained in HFCS is the exact same fructose contained in apples, oranges, rhubarb, and any other sweet fruit.

Again heres the relevant quote

And then we have this

and this

And then we have this

And, all of those basically state, if you consume too much sugar, you'll get fat. And, that fructose is much more calorie dense than sucrose (Table sugar). Not surprising, however, that does nothing to demonstrate that the fructose in HFCS is somehow different than the fructose contained in all sugar-containing fruits.

And then we have this mush older report on human studies that the industry tried to bury. This is the final conclusion of a study which very in depth and very long, Most of which was hard to follow as I'm not familiar with much of the technical and medical terminology and to be honest it put me to sleep more the once. To the best of my knowledge it's not available online. I learned long ago that corporate America likes to bury damaging medical reports and scientific research that damages. As a result I learned to start ordering hard copies after many peer reviewed studies magically disappeared off the Internet. Anyhow I had to order my copy of this study from one of the medical journals I subscribe to. Keep in mind It's an older industry sponsored study that was done before the Princeton study. None the less no matter how much the tried to candy coat it it was still damaging enough that they never used it.

Amazing how someone who is bored easily with medical terminology can somehow come to the conclusion that fructose in HFCS is somehow different than fructose in Apples and Oranges...

Oh and back to the erroneous claim by manufactures that Fructose and glucose are the same in both HFCS and Sugar and that the body processes them the same .. Yeah right Not according to Princeton researchers

The report you cite says nothing of the sort. Of course sucrose (Table sugar) is different in the way it's processed by the body than fructose. Sucrose is a chain of fructose molecules, and hence need to be broken down. However, the fructose in HFCS is the same fructose you'd get if you eat corn, rhubarb, oranges, apples, kiwis, bananas, etc.

The bottom line is that in moderation both fructose and sucrose probably don't pose much of a risk. The problem is that todays commercially manufactured foods are loaded with them and the average person is not consuming them in moderation. For god sakes theres the equivalent of one teaspoon full of sugar or HFCS in every teaspoon of ketchup.

And yes, that is the bad thing. We do need to stop adding sugar to stuff.

KC2UGV

10-07-2011, 12:16 PM

Wrong. Sucralose is not a sugar of any sort; it is merely a sweetener. Glucose and sucrose are both "sugars," but they each have entirely different chemical structures.

Sucralose is a sugar, made from sucrose, but with the chemical bonds closed to prevent the majority of breakdown in caloric energy. I didn't state they are all identicial to each other, but are all identical, no matter the source (Sucrose is sucrose, no matter it's source. Glucose is glucose, no matter the source. Fructose is fructose, no matter the source. Sucralose is sucralose, no matter the source). The source doesn't change the molecule.

Sucrose:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cb/Sucrose2.png

Sucralose:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e9/Sucralose2.png

They are both disacharrides.

N6YG

10-07-2011, 12:20 PM

Snipp.. A molecule of "fructose" is the same, regardless of whether it is synthesized in a lab or in a plant.

You are over simplifying, What you are failing to realize is that it's not about the individual molecules of Fructose, Sucroses and Glucose . HFCS and Sugar contain both. The issue is the bonding of the Fructose and Glucose molecules.

Again I point you to the Princeton Study

as a result of the manufacturing process for high-fructose corn syrup, the fructose molecules in the sweetener are free and unbound, ready for absorption and utilization. In contrast, every fructose molecule in sucrose that comes from cane sugar or beet sugar is bound to a corresponding glucose molecule and must go through an extra metabolic step before it can be utilized.

The devils in the details and that extra metabolic step required to metabolize HFCS is something many of you are conveniently ignoring when trying to compare it to sugar.

n2ize

10-07-2011, 12:22 PM

Wrong. Sucralose is not a sugar of any sort; it is merely a sweetener. Glucose and sucrose are both "sugars," but they each have entirely different chemical structures.

It depends on how you are defining the term "sugar". In a general sense "sugar" refers to any carbohydrate that can be consumed and imparts a "sweet" flavour. Chemically a "sugar" is a compound that falls into the class of saccharides, i,.e, mono, di, tri, etc. Chemically sucralose may qualify but I don't have a picture of the molecule in front of me at the moment.

KC2UGV

10-07-2011, 12:24 PM

You are over simplifying, What you are failing to realize is that it's not about the individual molecules of Fructose, Sucroses and Glucose . HFCS and Sugar contain both. The issue is the bonding of the Fructose and Glucose molecules.

Again I point you to the Princeton Study

The devils in the details and that extra metabolic step required to metabolize HFCS is something many of you are conveniently ignoring when trying to compare it to sugar.

I'm not comparing anything to sugar. Fructose is present in sweet fruits, as an unbounded molecule. It's also present as an unbounded molecule in corn, as well; which has naught to do with a manufacturing process. It has to do with what plants do.

Plants create fructose as an energy store, to be easily used. Already broken down. Cane and Beet Sugar is not marketed as fructose, but rather Sucrose.

Sucrose is a fructose molecule, bonded with a glucose molecule. That's what makes sucrose sucrose, and not fructose, or glucose.

You are the one comparing them. I am contrasting them, pointing out the differences. I am also pointing out the fact that the source does not change the molecule.

KC2UGV

10-07-2011, 12:25 PM

It depends on how you are defining the term "sugar". In a general sense "sugar" refers to any carbohydrate that can be consumed and imparts a "sweet" flavour. Chemically a "sugar" is a compound that falls into the class of saccharides, i,.e, mono, di, tri, etc. Chemically sucralose may qualify but I don't have a picture of the molecule in front of me at the moment.

I posed both sucrose and sucralose molecular images above. Both are "disaccharides", which means they are sugars (Sugar, in the chemical sense, is any disaccharide).

n2ize

10-07-2011, 12:27 PM

You are over simplifying,

It's not an over simplification. I am talking about the molecular level. A fructose molecule is a fructose molecule just as a water molecule is a water molecule. That is a fact.

The bottom line of the studies you references is, if you consume too much sugar you may become overweight, diabetic, etc... Nothing really that hasn't be known for a long time. It is a smart idea to control your daily sugar intake.

n2ize

10-07-2011, 12:27 PM

I posed both sucrose and sucralose molecular images above. Both are "disaccharides", which means they are sugars (Sugar, in the chemical sense, is any disaccharide).

yes, chemically they are both sugars.

KC2UGV

10-07-2011, 12:34 PM

I posed both sucrose and sucralose molecular images above. Both are "disaccharides", which means they are sugars (Sugar, in the chemical sense, is any disaccharide).

Been a while since chemistry class. Any saccharide is a sugar. Not just di-saccharides :)

N6YG

10-07-2011, 12:41 PM

Amazing how someone who is bored easily with medical terminology can somehow come to the conclusion that fructose in HFCS is somehow different than fructose in Apples and Oranges...

Pulease the report was several 100 pages long and it referenced a lot of lab tests that I'm not familiar with.

Furthermore I think you're mixing up peoples posts again. I never said that the fructose in HFCS was different than fructose in Apples and Oranges.

However, the fructose in HFCS is the same fructose you'd get if you eat corn, rhubarb, oranges, apples, kiwis, bananas, etc.

And that fructose would carry the same risks. But somehow I don't see the average American eating the several 100 oranges per day they would need to eat in order to ingest the same levels fructose they now ingest from HFCS laced products. That's where plain old sugar comes in. As previously pointed out the body does not metabolize the bound Fructose in sugar the same way it metabolize the unbound fructose in HFCS. And that's my friend is exactly what researchers are studying.

Again I'll point you to the Researchers at Princeton

as a result of the manufacturing process for high-fructose corn syrup, the fructose molecules in the sweetener are free and unbound, ready for absorption and utilization. In contrast, every fructose molecule in sucrose that comes from cane sugar or beet sugar is bound to a corresponding glucose molecule and must go through an extra metabolic step before it can be utilized.

This creates a fascinating puzzle. The rats in the Princeton study became obese by drinking high-fructose corn syrup, but not by drinking sucrose. The critical differences in appetite, metabolism and gene expression that underlie this phenomenon are yet to be discovered, but may relate to the fact that excess fructose is being metabolized to produce fat, while glucose is largely being processed for energy or stored as a carbohydrate, called glycogen, in the liver and muscles.

Again it seems as though the problem is the way the body is processing the unbound Fructose in HFCS as compared to how the body is processing the Fructose that is molecularly bonded to Glucose in sugar.

KC2UGV

10-07-2011, 12:48 PM

First the report was several 100 pages long and it referenced a lot of lab tests that I'm not familiar with.

Furthermore I think you're mixing up peoples posts again. I never said that the fructose in HFCS was different than fructose in Apples and Oranges.

You state this very thing below...

.

And that fructose would carry the same risks. But somehow I don't see the average American eating the several 100 oranges per day they would need to eat in order to ingest the same levels fructose they now ingest from HFCS laced products. That's where plain old sugar comes in. As previously pointed out the body does not metabolize the Fructose is sugar the same way it metabolize the fructose in HFCS. And thats exactly what researchers are studying

Again I'll point you to the Researchers at Princeton

And, that's not a problem with HFCS, or fructose, but rather manufacturer's putting too much in. Fructose is about 100 times sweeter than sucrose, and about 100 times as calorie dense. They should be use much less, to get the same sweetness factor,

Again it seems as though the problem is the way the body is processing the unbound Fructose in HFCS as compared to how the body is processing the Fructose that is molecularly bonded to Glucose in sugar.

Unbounded fructose is called fructose... Bound fructose is called sucrose (Or, one of the many other poly-saccharides).

sigh.

N6YG

10-07-2011, 12:58 PM

It's not an over simplification. I am talking about the molecular level. A fructose molecule is a fructose molecule just as a water molecule is a water molecule. That is a fact.

The bottom line of the studies you references is, if you consume too much sugar you may become overweight, diabetic, etc... Nothing really that hasn't be known for a long time. It is a smart idea to control your daily sugar intake.

And again your being disingenuous it's not simply a case of consuming to much. The study clearly has shown that rats who consumed half the about of HFCS as compared to sucroses gained nearly 48 percent more weight! as the rats who consumed nearly twice as much sucrose.

Not only that they also had much higher levels of circulating triglycerides as compared to the rats who were fed sucroses.

KC2UGV

10-07-2011, 01:06 PM

And again your being disingenuous it's not simply a case of consuming to much. The study clearly has shown that rats who consumed half the about of HFCS as compared to sucroses gained nearly 48 percent more weight! as the rats who consumed nearly twice as much sucrose.

Not only that they also had much higher levels of circulating triglycerides as compared to the rats who were fed sucroses.

Of course they would, even at half the amount. Fructose is about 100 times as calorie dense... And, due to it's chemical structure, half the weight of fructose would be equal to double that weight of sucrose, calorie-wise.

Sucrose is 1 fructose + 2 glucose.

And, taking into account omni/herbivore instincts to consume more of something, the sweeter it is, it would make sense.

And, seeing as they were obese, increased levels of triglycerides seems a no-brainer as well.

Again, it demonstrates nothing that supports the notion that somehow, fructose in fruits is different than fructose in HFCS.

And, there is no such thing as "sucroses". Sucrose is a particular type of sugar (Table sugar). Fructose is another particular type, known as "Fruit Sugar". Glucose is another type, etc etc.

N6YG

10-07-2011, 01:23 PM

You state this very thing below...

And, that's not a problem with HFCS, or fructose, but rather manufacturer's putting too much in. Fructose is about 100 times sweeter than sucrose, and about 100 times as calorie dense. They should be use much less, to get the same sweetness factor,

Unbounded fructose is called fructose... Bound fructose is called sucrose (Or, one of the many other poly-saccharides).

sigh.

And HFCS contains both Fructose and glucose the problem is they are unbound and this affects the the way the body metabolize HFCS

Another quote from the graduate students conducting the study at the prestigious Princeton university
When rats are drinking high-fructose corn syrup at levels well below those in soda pop, they're becoming obese -- every single one, across the board. Even when rats are fed a high-fat diet, you don't see this; they don't all gain extra weight."

Anyhow I hope you don't take it to personally if I take the opinions of Princeton graduate students and professors a bit more seriously then the Internet posts of hobbyists. After all many of you are directly contradicting a published study with nothing but your own opinions to back it up . At least you could try and provide just one credible link to back up your claims..

After all I have..

Again Princeton graduate students have this to say..

as a result of the manufacturing process for high-fructose corn syrup, the fructose molecules in the sweetener are free and unbound, ready for absorption and utilization. In contrast, every fructose molecule in sucrose that comes from cane sugar or beet sugar is bound to a corresponding glucose molecule and must go through an extra metabolic step before it can be utilized.

and this

The first study showed that male rats given water sweetened with high-fructose corn syrup in addition to a standard diet of rat chow gained much more weight than male rats that received water sweetened with table sugar, or sucrose, in conjunction with the standard diet.

Whats that ?? rats that ate HFCS added to their diet got fatter then the rats who ate plain old table sugar added to their diet, Oh and not just a little bit fatter 48 percent fatter as the study later detailed. And those rats were eating only half the amount of HFCS thats present in sodas vs the rats who were on sugar who were eating 100 percent of the amount of sugar in soda.

WØTKX

10-07-2011, 01:27 PM

It's the amount of sugar (such as in processed and fast foods) not the chemistry of the various sugar types.

Duh? :wall:

These "foods" are subject to the ploys of "Marketechture". Made more to make money, than to nourish. Salts and sugars are cheap methods of making crappy food taste good, not to mention adding addictive qualities.

Bet you can't eat just one! :mrgreen:

http://summertomato.com/shocking-sugar-content-of-common-food-products/

Foods we recognize as dessert (e.g. doughnuts, ice cream, cookies) often have far less sugar than things we consider “healthy” (e.g. juice, yogurt, dried fruit).
Froot Loops aren’t necessarily better than doughnuts.
Energy bars are glorified candy.
Dessert is sometimes hidden in things like sandwiches.
Some foods marketed to children aren’t much better than soda.
A salad can have as much sugar as one of the biggest cupcakes I’ve ever seen.
“Natural” foods can have lots of sugar.
The worst offenders are drinkable.
Starbucks is why you’re fat.

How much sugar is in your favorite foods?

N6YG

10-07-2011, 01:34 PM

Of course they would, even at half the amount. Fructose is about 100 times as calorie dense... And, due to it's chemical structure, half the weight of fructose would be equal to double that weight of sucrose, calorie-wise.

Sucrose is 1 fructose + 2 glucose.

Hmm did you actually read the study. They weren't feeding the rats half the amount of HFCS as compared to sugar. They were feeding the equivalent of half the amount of HFCS contained in an average can of soda or the equivalent of drinking half a can of soda a day..

While the rats on sugar where consuming the equivalent of drinking 1 full can of sugar sweetened soda a day.

And, taking into account omni/herbivore instincts to consume more of something, the sweeter it is, it would make sense.

It was a controlled study the rats were fed specific controlled amounts a day and were not simply free to consume as much as they wanted. Obviously allowing them to consume and uncontrolled amount would make the study worthless.

And, seeing as they were obese, increased levels of triglycerides seems a no-brainer as well.
Talking about brains, Actually reading the study before commenting on it is a no-brainer. So why don't you please go read it. I'm getting kind of tired of holding your hand and explaining it to you. Besides it would be a lot more fun to talk about.

Again, it demonstrates nothing that supports the notion that somehow, fructose in fruits is different than fructose in HFCS.

Yet another attempt at deflection, I never said it was different. What I did say is that I don't see the average American eating the several 100 oranges a day they would probably need to consume in order to ingest the same levels of fructose they now ingests through HFCS laced products.

kc7jty

10-07-2011, 01:45 PM

Favorite snack here....

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTvvcqG8mg5sI4h174tba4R4CsnhV02f widgQ_mHJpp4D3KI7Nwlw
Cheese whiz!?! I thought the Europeans appreciated better food than us?

W3WN

10-07-2011, 01:46 PM

NQ6U

10-07-2011, 01:49 PM

Cheese whiz!?! I thought the Europeans appreciated better food than us?

I believe that's mayonnaise—the real kind, not the crap we get in jars here in the U.S.

kc7jty

10-07-2011, 01:53 PM

Women are more prone to like/crave sweets. Men are more likely to eat what mommy/the wife has in the house. Women do most of the food shopping.
You can not buy sweetener free, plastic bagged, sliced bread in the supermarket in this F'd up country.

kc7jty

10-07-2011, 01:54 PM

I believe that's mayonnaise—the real kind, not the crap we get in jars here in the U.S.
Oh yeah!?! Lots of egg yolks mayo eh? Sounds good... tell us Cor.

n2ize

10-07-2011, 01:55 PM

And HFCS contains both Fructose and glucose the problem is they are unbound and this affects the the way the body metabolize HFCS

Another quote from the graduate students conducting the study at the prestigious Princeton university

Anyhow I hope you don't take it to personally if I take the opinions of Princeton graduate students and professors a bit more seriously then the Internet posts of hobbyists. After all many of you are directly contradicting a published study with nothing but your own opinions to back it up . At least you could try and provide at least one credible link to back up your clams..

From the way it sounds to me it sounds like you're all saying basically the same thing only with minor corrections on some of the details.

Outside of that forums such as these are not the best places to get into detailed scientific debates. I am sure that outside of the ham radio hobby there are some people here who are professional and may work or have have worked in some research capacity or another, either on the academic or industrial level. The problem with forums such as this is that unless a person has hours upon hours of time at their disposal it is very difficult to access and review all the different studies and their findings and analyse them in terms of content, peer review, reproducible , consensus, etc. As far as studies go I have read some graduate studies that are excellent and seem to be right on the mark with respect to quality and well founded research. I have also seen studies done by professors or industrial researchers that were seriously flawed. I recall one study done by a couple of researchers at a prominent University that made a glaring error in their statistical analysis and conclusions because they entirely misinterpreted a probability theorem. It doesn;t mean that they are bad professors it just means that sometimes even professors can make careless mistakes.

I think what we can conclude at this point is...

1) At the molecular level molecules are molecules.
2) Sucrose, fructose, glucose , etc. are different in a chemical sense
2) Various substances can behave differently in the human body when in combination with other substances and sometimes these outcomes can be undesirable.
3) Fructose, as used in our society may be problematic for a variety of reasons, including possible reasons cited in the studies listed here and for other reasons mentioned as well.
4) It is probably a good idea to limit your intake of sugars to avoid obesity, diabetes, and other dietary related illnesses.

I think these are all points everyone can agree on and pretty ,much sums it all up.

NQ6U

10-07-2011, 01:58 PM

Oh yeah!?! Lots of egg yolks mayo eh? Sounds good... tell us Cor.

It's possible to make it yourself but it can be tedious. You have to drizzle the olive oil into the egg yolks very slowly while whisking continuously or it will break and you'll have an unpalatable mess on your hands. Guess how I know this....

n2ize

10-07-2011, 02:13 PM

Hmm did you actually read the study. They weren't feeding the rats half the amount of HFCS as compared to sugar. They were feeding the equivalent of half the amount of HFCS contained in an average can of soda or the equivalent of drinking half a can of soda a day..

While the rats on sugar where consuming the equivalent of drinking 1 full can of sugar sweetened soda a day.

I'm just running this quickly off the top of my head so I may be missing something but If it is true that the caloric density of fructose is in a 100:1 ratio as Corey stated with respect to sugar then feeding rats 1/2 can equivalent of fructose is still going to be about 5000% higher in calories than the full can equivalent of sucrose sweetened sugar with has a far lower caloric density. Thus is seems like overall the fructose rats were consuming many more calories than their counterparts. Thus , no wonder people get fat and diabetic from fructose because they are pumping it into products in the same equivalent mass as with sucrose.

If I can manage the time I'll grab a closer look at the Princeton study.

NA4BH

10-07-2011, 02:30 PM

N6YG

10-07-2011, 02:31 PM

I'm not comparing anything to sugar. Fructose is present in sweet fruits, as an unbounded molecule. It's also present as an unbounded molecule in corn, as well; which has naught to do with a manufacturing process. It has to do with what plants do. snipp...

Just more deflection .

You keep resorting to the same useless argument about fructose being natural in fruits bla... bla.. bla.. Yeah no one has ever contested that as we already know it.

Whats you fail to accept is that HFCS is fructose dense hence HIGH FRUCTOSE duh!!! It is a combination of unbound fructose and glucose and its that combination of unbound molecules thats seems to cause problems ..

Back to fruit, its obvious you are trying to imply safety based on the fact that Fructose is naturally found in fruit therefore how can it make you fat. After all fruits low in calories and not known to make you fat.. Or is it Depends on how much fruit you eat. Start eating a few 100 oranges a day which is about the same about of fructose the average consumer ingests and you'll start gaining weight.

Fruit is a healthy food, full of nutrients, high in fiber, vitamins, minerals, and low in fat and calories.

Why Fruits Are Important!

Our bodies can only absorb monosaccharides (glucose, galactose, or fructose), the single units of sugars and starches. It's absorbed through the small intestines into whats called the portal vein, It's then then circulated into the bloodstream through the liver as blood glucose..

Now our bodies can put glucose to work in three ways.

It can burn the glucose immediately for energy if blood glucose levels are not at a stable level of 20 grams blood borne glucose circulating per hour.

If it is not needed for energy immediately, then it is converted into glycogen in the liver or muscles. The liver has the capacity to store 100 grams of glycogen. The muscles have the capacity to store between 250-400 grams of glycogen, depending on muscle mass and physical condition. Liver glycogen supplies energy for the entire body. Muscle glycogen only supplies energy to muscles.

If the body has an excess of glucose, and all of the glycogen stores are full, the surplus glucose is converted to fat by the liver and stored as adipose tissue (bodyfat) around the body. If needed, fatty acids can be burned as fuel (BUT the fat cannot be converted back to glucose).

Now that we understand how our bodies use glucose, we'll discuss why fruit (fructose or fruit sugar) is detrimental with regards to fat lose and how it can be responsible for excessive weight gain

Muscles have a limited number of enzymes for glycogen synthesis. Muscle only have the necessary enzymes to convert glucose (and nothing else) into glycogen. The liver, however, is able to make glycogen from fructose, lactate, glycerol, alanine, and other three-carbon metabolites. Muscle glycogen, which is similar in structure to starch, is an amylopectin (branched chained polymer containing hundreds of glucose units). Unlike muscles, which can only supply energy to themselves through the stored 250-400 grams of glycogen, the liver is responsible for supplying energy to the entire body.

If You Have Fruit, Fruit Juice, Or Any Of Its Derivatives that contain fructose, The Following Conditions Occur:

Assuming that blood glucose levels are adequate, the glucose will then be stored as glycogen. Muscle do not have the necessary enzymes to synthesize fructose into glycogen; therefore the liver converts this fructose into liver glycogen. It would only take three, 8-ounce glasses of orange juice to fully replenish liver glycogen levels. Since the liver is responsible for supplying energy to the entire body, once its stores are full, a rate limiting enzyme in glucose metabolism, which is responsible for signaling the body to store glucose as glycogen or convert it to fat (phosphofructokinase), signals the body that all stores are full. If the glycogen stores are signaled as full, then the third way our body uses excess glucose is to convert it to fatty acids and store as adipose tissue. In essence, fruit sugar is easily converted to fat.

Many may be asking why then is fruit low on the glycemic index? If it does not cause a sudden release of insulin, then how could it ever be a poor food choice? Once the fructose (fruit sugar) enters the liver and liver glycogen is already full, then it cannot be used by the muscles for glycogen or energy production.

It is then converted to fat and released back into the bloodstream to be stored as adipose tissue. The low glycemic response is based on the fact that fructose leaves the liver as fat, and fat does not raise insulin levels.

So while Fructose is natural it's also very easily converted to fat by the liver.

Which is exactly what the Princeton university study confirmed. And that is that lab rats who were fed the equivalent of about half a can of HFCS sweetened soda per day gained 48 percent more weight then rats who consumed the equivalent of 1 full can of sugar sweetened soda per day.

Even though the HFCS feed rats consumed half as much soda as their counterparts they gained nearly 48 percent more weaght!

KC2UGV

10-07-2011, 02:48 PM

So, tell me, then: What happens to sucrose when it's broken down?

What does it become?

N6YG

10-07-2011, 02:50 PM

Actually it was them Chinese people that started the whole thing:

Hey you forgot to mention Jamaica banana ketchup. I'll never forget the first time I tried it. A friend and I had flown to Jamaica to do a boat delivery back to the states. Fun Country, Needless to say not only did the owners pay for our airline tickets our contract with the boat owner also allowed us plenty of time to party and cruise for a few weeks before we had to start thinking about bring the boat back to the states.

KC9ECI

10-07-2011, 02:51 PM

This thread could only exist on a ham radio forum.

NA4BH

10-07-2011, 02:53 PM

Hey you forgot to mention Jamaica banana ketchup. I'll never forget the first time I tried it. A friend and I had flown to Jamaica to do a boat delivery back to the states. Fun Country, Needless to say not only did the owners pay for our airline tickets our contract with the boat owner also allowed us plenty of time to party and cruise for a few weeks before we had to start thinking about bring the boat back to the states.

That is the best catsup in the world.

n2ize

10-07-2011, 02:55 PM

Even though the HFCS feed rats consumed half as much soda as their counterparts they gained nearly 48 percent more weaght!

See my post above. if its true that the caloric density is as high as Corey pointed out then even the rats that were fed half the dosage equivalent to 1 can fructose soda they would have still been receiving a much higher caloric intake than the rats who were fed a dosage equivalent to 1 full can sucrose sugared soda in which case it would be no surprise that those rats got fatter and the experiment would indicate a need to use fructose in much smaller quantities in order to maintain an equivalent caloric intake. However, this is sort of rough and tumble right now. I only glosseed over it so i might be missing something.

N6YG

10-07-2011, 03:31 PM

So, tell me, then: What happens to sucrose when it's broken down?

What does it become?

It's my understanding that unlike HFCS, Sucrose is fructose and glucose molecularly bonded together. While HFCS is a combination of unbound fructose and glucose which is quickly and easily converted by the body into to fat and glycogen. This molecular bonding of the fructose and glucose is the major difference between HFCS and sucrose and as such breaking down sucrose requires the body to perform additional steps and expend considerably more energy in the process of breaking down those bonds before it can metabolizing the fructose and glucose separately.

Once again the Princeton University researchers have clearly shown that consumption of unbounded fructose and glucose aka HFCS contributes to significantly more weight gain in rats as compared to the equivalent amount of molecularly bonded Fructose and glucose..

Once again even though the HFCS feed rats consumed half as much HFCS sweetened soda as their sucrose counterparts they gained nearly 48 percent more weight!. I don't know about you but thats some pretty strong evidence substantiating what most reasonable people already knew. And that is that the body is able to more effectively and efficiently able to convert the unbounded molecules of Fructose and glucose in HFCS into glycogen and fat.

N6YG

10-07-2011, 03:43 PM

snip.. the experiment would indicate a need to use fructose in much smaller quantities in order to maintain an equivalent caloric intake. .

Again the very first paragraph states.

A Princeton University research team has demonstrated that all sweeteners are not equal when it comes to weight gain: Rats with access to high-fructose corn syrup gained significantly more weight than those with access to table sugar, even when their overall caloric intake was the same.

It has nothing to do with HFCS being more calorie dense. The researchers took that into consideration and they made sure the overall caloric intake was the same between the two test groups.

W3MIV

10-07-2011, 03:55 PM

The corn lobby is going to shut down this thread. You have been warned....

N6YG

10-07-2011, 04:36 PM

Regardless of the detailed chemical composition of the various sweetners that generally get lumped together in the public eye as "sugar" ...

I think the real point is that too many food items are processed and marketed to minimize costs (production & delivery) and maximize profits. Which in and of itself isn't a bad thing (that is part of the essence of capitalism, after all). The problem is that this has been done to an extreme, and to the point where unhealthy food is being marketed to consumers under false pretenses. By "unhealthly" I mean, amongst other things... overprocessed; overrefined; saturation with additives, artificial color, preservatives, and other chemicals to make something appear more palatable than it is; and similar processes that remove or leach out or neutralize essential nutrients, fiber, and so forth.

The excess to the extreme of adding sugars to almost anything is merely one egregious example of this trend.

For example: Ever have sugar-free peanut butter? What, you didn't realize that most commercial peanut butters are loaded with sugar? Anyway, no it's not as sweet, but it actually tastes more like peanuts.

Somehow I missed this post, probably has something to do with spending so much time writing posts that turn into short novels

Anyhow I agree with your sentiments. In fact its pretty much the reason I went back to cooking, baking, gardening and canning . I pretty much try and avoid as much commercially processed foods as I can. Heck I even stone grind my own flower (most of the time) Sometimes I get lazy and resort to using King Arthur flour.

Anyhow heres a few pictures you might enjoy.
4714
These are a couple 430 gram whole grain boules. I believe they were 70 percent hydration dough using 1/3rd high protein flower, 1/3 whole grain and 1/3 rye.
4715
Another whole grain boule this is a larger one equal to two of the smaller ones. I believe this one was 85 percent hydration. Very wet dough extremely difficult to work with. Again a combination of wheat, rye and high protein flours

4716
Don't remember what these were looks like mostly high protein probably a 70 or 75 percent hydration dough

4717
Looks like another view from the one above.

I bake quite a bit of bread. It's a very relaxing hobby while being a difficult art to master. I bake between 10 to 20 loafs a week. Almost all of which I give away. Some to friends and quite a bit to the local homeless.

My wife and I always grab a few when we leave the house and hand them out to people we see living on the streets. By this point I probably know most of the homeless around here by name. It's kinda funny, I'll stop to get gas and when I come back out after paying for it more often then not someone washing the windows on my truck. It's always one of the homeless I've given bread to. I guess its their way of saying thank you. Apparently they don't take me seriously when I tell them that they're actually doing me a favor. if I didn't give it away then I would eat it and I'm already to damn fat.

I've learned a valuable lesson and that is that it pays to be break bread with the homeless and treat them as humans and not some sort of worthless trash . A while back someone broke into my yard and stole a 33 gallon rubber maid container full of cans. I mentioned it to one of the local homeless men I give bread to regularly. he's a homeless vet who lost a leg. I told him I didn't care about the cans just wanted the container back. Anyhow he said he would pass the word around.

Amazingly later that day The homeless vet came walking up the driveway on his crutches with someone I didn't recognize behind him, H was new and he was carrying my rubber maid container. He apologized profusely and begged me not to call the cops.

He politely told me that he had already turned in the cans for gas money but that he would mow my lawn or do whatever yard work he needed to pay me back. So I let him mow the lawn and wash the outside windows. When he was done, I gave him a large loaf of bread and sent him on his way. Poor guy, looked to be in his late 50's college educated, recently lost his job his home and was now forced to live in his car with his wife. He showed me picture of the house he lost and the son he last in Iraq. I recognized the home as it wasn't far away. Later on using security camera photos I confirmed with his neighbors that it was indeed his old house.

The damn tea party campaigned on JOBS! JOBS! JOBS! yet what have they done since winning the house?
Job's bills = 0
Anti abortion bills = 9

kc7jty

10-07-2011, 04:37 PM

The corn lobby is going to shut down this thread. You have been warned....
http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT3dxtJxFgKywXLZbbfxeId4RUsr5KJg yt6lseEQv4xGNGSD6on3ueRIBlyqAhttp://3.bp.blogspot.com/_d1yewYtBxw0/RvNzL6S-DCI/AAAAAAAAAaw/2scnVxw37TI/s320/Cargill+1966.gif http://brianallmerradionetwork.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/dekalb-logo.gif?w=200&h=200

Not this time. A band of club wielding thugs is being readied.

W1GUH

10-07-2011, 04:46 PM

W3MIV

10-07-2011, 05:41 PM

My wife and I always grab a few when we leave the house and hand them out to people we see living on the streets... I've learned it pays to be break bread with the homeless.

Goldurn librul!

N6YG

10-07-2011, 05:51 PM

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT3dxtJxFgKywXLZbbfxeId4RUsr5KJg yt6lseEQv4xGNGSD6on3ueRIBlyqAhttp://3.bp.blogspot.com/_d1yewYtBxw0/RvNzL6S-DCI/AAAAAAAAAaw/2scnVxw37TI/s320/Cargill+1966.gif http://brianallmerradionetwork.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/dekalb-logo.gif?w=200&h=200

Not this time. A band of club wielding thugs is being readied.

Does that mean I should be concerned about retribution from the corn cob police :scared:

N6YG

10-07-2011, 05:58 PM

Awwww....maligning good, pure, wholesome, nutritional sugar? That wonderful, beautiful, delicious substance that makes us feel so GOOD?

Besides, it's one of the four food groups which should be consumed everyday...

Sugar
Fat
Salt
Alcohol

Consume those everyday and enjoy a long, productive, happy life!!!!!!

Hmm seems I've heard that argument before are you sure you don't work for Rick Berman (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Rick_Berman) over at the Center for Consumer Freedom.. :-D

(http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_Consumer_Freedom)The Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) (formerly called the "Guest Choice Network (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Guest_Choice_Network) (GCN)") is a front group (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Front_groups) for the restaurant, alcohol, tobacco and other industries. It runs media campaigns which oppose the efforts of scientists, doctors, health advocates, animal advocates, environmentalists and groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Mothers_Against_Drunk_Driving), calling them "the Nanny Culture -- the growing fraternity of food cops, health care enforcers, anti-meat activists, and meddling bureaucrats who 'know what's best for you.'"
CCF is registered as a tax-exempt, non-profit organization under the IRS code 501(c)(3) (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=501%28c%29%283%29). Its advisory board is comprised mainly of representatives from the restaurant, meat and alcoholic beverage industries.

(http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_Consumer_Freedom)

CCF is one of the more active of several front groups created by Berman & Co. (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Berman_%26_Co.), a public affairs firm owned by lobbyist (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Lobbyist) Rick Berman (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Rick_Berman). Based in Washington, D.C., Berman & Co. represents the tobacco industry (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Tobacco_industry) as well as hotels, beer distributors, taverns, and restaurant chains. Hotels, motels, restaurants, bars and taverns together comprise the "hospitality industry (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Hospitality_industry)," which has long been cultivated by the tobacco industry as a third party to help slow or stop the progression of smoke free laws. CCF actively opposes smoking bans and lowering the legal blood-alcohol level, while targeting studies on the dangers of meat & dairy (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Meat_%26_dairy), processed food (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Processed_food), fatty foods, soda pop, pharmaceuticals (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Pharmaceutical), animal testing (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Animal_testing), overfishing and pesticides. Each year they give out the "nanny awards" to groups who, according to them, try to tell consumers how to live their lives. Anyone who criticizes any of the above is likely to come under attack from CCF. Its enemies list has included such diverse groups and individuals as the Alliance of American Insurers; the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons; the American Medical Association (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Medical_Association) (AMA); the Arthritis Foundation; the Consumer Federation of America (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Consumer_Federation_of_America); New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Rudy_Giuliani); the Harvard School of Public Health; the Marin Institute for the Prevention of Alcohol and Other Drug Problems; the National Association of High School Principals; the National Safety Council; the National Transportation Safety Board; the Office of Highway Safety for the state of Georgia; Ralph Nader (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Ralph_Nader)'s group, Public Citizen (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Public_Citizen); the Centers for Disease Control (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Centers_for_Disease_Control) (CDC) and the U.S. Department of Transportation (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=U.S._Department_of_Transportation) (DOT).