High fructose corn syrup - It's fine

[Gangstalker #32194]

Date:January 5, 2015Source:University of UtahSummary:When biologists fed mice sugar in doses proportional to what many people eat, the fructose-glucose mixture found in high-fructose corn syrup was more toxic than sucrose or table sugar, reducing both the reproduction and lifespan of female rodents.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/01/150105080503.htm

i know i know, those other studies in brazil or the university of mumbai or whereever that probably had their study funded by the corn industry will probably not produce the same results, how disingenuous of me

replication crisis is a bitch

 

[Penis Drager 2.0]

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/01/150105080503.htm

i know i know, those other studies in brazil or the university of mumbai or whereever that probably had their study funded by the corn industry will probably not produce the same results, how disingenuous of me

replication crisis is a bitch

Reading the original study, we find that what they observed was no meaningful difference among males fed the different sugars. Only females "outperformed" in terms of weight gain, reproductive failure, and mortality. These findings directly contradict the claims of the source you provided in the last post.
Meanwhile, I provided a cohort of 24 studies all finding limited evidence that there's a difference at all.

"The replication crisis" is not the problem here. The results have been replicated. They just don't say what you want them to say.

 

[Napoleon Bonerfart]

Ok so that's fine. High fructose corn syrup is no worse than sugar. Sugar is terrible and you should not consume any amount of excess sugar spare for extreme cases of moderation.

Avoid all highly processed food.

whole grains are a myth.

 

[The Tall Man]

It's not.

It's only 20% fructose here normally, which is quite different from 55%.
I don't even want to know what the leftover mutant enzymes do to your gut when you consume burger HFCS.

>They obviously remove all the enzyme from the final product
Yeah, the producers of HFCS would never cut corners because they really care about their customers; that's why they try to get HFCS into every single product they can.

 

[Penis Drager 2.0]

It's only 20% fructose here normally

Bullshit. I would even go as far as to say HFCS-20 doesn't exist in any capacity.

I don't even want to know what the leftover mutant enzymes do to your gut when you consume burger HFCS.

1. More enzyme != more fructose. It's a catalyst. The reaction continues until, and naturally ceases at, about 42% fructose to glucose regardless of how much enzyme you add (though more enzyme will speed up the process). The only way 55% can even be achieved is by producing HFCS-90 via an entirely different process and dumping that into HFCS-42.
2. Enzymes are proteins. Your body will do with them what it does to all other proteins and that is break it down into its constituent amino acids to convert into other proteins.

 

[bile demon]

There's no meaningful difference in how your body metabolizes the shit because it's literally the same shit.

Wrong in evey detail as always, stalker.

In the glycolytic pathway with glucose as a substrate, one of the initial steps is phosphorylation of fructose-6-phosphate to fructose-1,6-bis-phosphate. This is a rate limiting step of glycolysis and the enzyme, phosphofructokinase, is allosterically inhibited by citrate cycle intermediates and ATP. Fructose entering the glycolytic cycle directly and not as a product of glucose isomerization does not undergo a 2nd phosphorylation and is instead cleaved as fructose-1-phosphate to dihydroxyaceton phosphate and glyceraldehyde, skipping the rate limiting PFK-catalyzed step. Therefore, your body can regulate the breakdown of glucose based on its energy needs but not that of fructose, making glucose the far superior and "healthier" source of ATP.

 

[Penis Drager 2.0]

Wrong in evey detail as always, stalker.

View attachment 6189100In the glycolytic pathway with glucose as a substrate, one of the initial steps is phosphorylation of fructose-6-phosphate to fructose-1,6-bis-phosphate. This is a rate limiting step of glycolysis and the enzyme, phosphofructokinase, is allosterically inhibited by citrate cycle intermediates and ATP. Fructose entering the glycolytic cycle directly and not as a product of glucose isomerization does not undergo a 2nd phosphorylation and is instead cleaved as fructose-1-phosphate to dihydroxyaceton phosphate and glyceraldehyde, skipping the rate limiting PFK-catalyzed step. Therefore, your body can regulate the breakdown of glucose based on its energy needs but not that of fructose, making glucose the far superior and "healthier" source of ATP.

Once again, you're assuming HFCS has more fructose than cane sugar does. This is not the case.
Based on your logic, regular corn syrup is basically the ideal sugar.

 

[bile demon]

Once again, you're assuming HFCS has more fructose than cane sugar does. This is not the case.

Wrong yet again, child. I'm not assuming anything, I'm merely pointing out the difference between fructose and glucose metabolism in excruciating and unnecessary detail to obnoxiously make the reader aware of my deep understanding of biochemistry.

Only females "outperformed" in terms of weight gain, reproductive failure, and mortality.

Moids outperformed by females yet again... Fellow kings, how are we going to recover from this one?

 

[Penis Drager 2.0]

I'm merely pointing out the difference between fructose and glucose metabolism in excruciating and unnecessary detail to obnoxiously make the reader aware of my deep understanding of biochemistry.

Okay. So what's the relevance?
HFCS has approximately the same ratio of fructose to glucose as cane sugar. So I'm not wrong in saying "There's no meaningful difference in how your body metabolizes the shit."

 

[bile demon]

So what's the relevance?

lol