var json_comments = new Array("
\"user-pic\"
daveinva
March 24, 2010 8:02 AM
Moderate | Flag for review

C'mon.... Taylor Swift ain't THAT bad.

Certainly not as bad as HFCS!

Reply
6 replies
\"user-pic\"
DragonThermo
March 25, 2010 10:01 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Imma gonna let you finish, Consumerist, but Cat Fancy had the best issue evah!

But seriously.. I guess Consumerist is with Team Kanye. Or maybe they drink their Hennessy straight from the bottle while wearing their d-bag venetian blind glasses.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
pimpybra
March 24, 2010 9:15 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I don't understand why a reference to a pop artist had to be made at all. People's opinions on music varies so much, why does it have to come down to something petty and opinionated.

Stay classy, consumerist.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
dragonfire81
March 24, 2010 11:57 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

This is a blog, not a straight up e-news site. Opinions are allowed in a blog.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Admiral Byrd
March 24, 2010 10:58 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

This is Phil. And Phil has never been funny. Ever.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
torgonius
March 24, 2010 8:37 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

If I have to chose between the two, I'm taking death by HFCS

Reply
\"user-pic\"
YOXIM
March 24, 2010 9:34 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

And I'm gonna let you finish but...

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Mr. FixIt is a Domestic Extremist
March 24, 2010 10:25 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Sugar is the best sweetener of all time? Of All Time?!

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
jeffjohnvol
March 24, 2010 8:10 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I wish we all had little circular stick on labels that say \"WARNING: HAS HFCS!\" so we can put them on stuff in the grocery store that has it. It would do 2 things perhaps. 1) discourage purchase of the product, 2) let those that don't know that they should be worried about HFCS.

Reply
9 replies
\"user-pic\"
Difdi
March 24, 2010 2:57 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

If you're trying to avoid HFCS, a Jewish grocery store is (heh) a god-send. They typically have a far larger kosher foods section than any other store, and you won't find any HFCS in that section. It'll be cheaper, on average, than buying organic products too (most HFCS production is from gene-modified corn, which is specifically excluded from anything certified organic).

Reply
\"user-pic\"
whogots
March 24, 2010 12:02 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Remember Mr. Yuck, on the green poison control labels? He'd be a good basis for your idea, I think :)

Reply
\"user-pic\"
jimmyhl
March 24, 2010 10:28 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

You'd need a lot of labels, my man. Next time you go to the supermarket, pick up, say, fifty packaged items and just about any section of the store. That stuff is everywhere.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Aesteval
March 24, 2010 9:02 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

3) cause people to realize \"holy crap, there's not a lot of things that I can get that doesn't have it in it\"

Reply
\"user-pic\"
mattarse
March 24, 2010 9:00 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

it's already labeled in the ingredients isn't it?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Bohemian
March 24, 2010 10:39 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

The real problem is that there is HFCS it food products that people would never assume it would be in. The people who actually know how bad this and some other food additives are already read labels. Most people know it is in most soda but don't realize that it might be in a savory bottled salad dressing or something like an instant rice dish.

People are constantly consuming this crap without realizing it. I really think that is a significant factor in the obesity problem.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
GitEm$teveDave
March 24, 2010 11:24 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Except in your salad dressing is LFCS, which is a corn syrup which has a lower fructose content than \"real\" sugar.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
dorianh49
March 24, 2010 11:48 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

No, there are many salad dressings (like from Kraft) that contain actual \"High Fructose Corn Syrup\", not just \"Corn Syrup\".

Reply
\"user-pic\"
nbs2
March 24, 2010 9:27 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Yeah, but it can be hard to pick out for brand that have those \"and/or\" general labels. Especially when you don't have all the time in the world to check every brand for every item.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ChemicallyInert
March 24, 2010 10:42 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Not that this refutes your point, but Jews, Muslims, and other people in this country with religious dietary restrictions have little problem sifting through the ingredients of everything they pick up. It becomes second nature. I'm a big fan of more obvious labeling for certain things, but I'm just sayin' is all.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Alessar
March 24, 2010 9:30 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Plus there are many foods that have it that you just wouldn't expect it in. For instance, my favorite yogurt...

Reply
\"user-pic\"
vastrightwing
March 24, 2010 9:18 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Exactly, and I do read the label to avoid HFCS. Not only do I believe this study, but the stuff gives me a wicked headache. About 5 minutes after drinking any HFCS ladened beverage, it hits me like a ton of bricks.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Difdi
March 24, 2010 3:05 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I have no direct illness issues with HFCS, but Splenda has that exact effect on me.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Dre'
March 24, 2010 9:17 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Yup, not too hard to avoid if you really want to.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Radiating
March 24, 2010 8:10 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

As a nutritonist I can easily explain their findings which have been known for a while with a simple copy and paste from Wikipedia's HFCS entry:

A molecule of sucrose (with a chemical formula of C12H22O11) can be broken down into a molecule of glucose (C6H12O6) plus a molecule of fructose (also C6H12O6 — an isomer of glucose) in a weakly acidic environment. Sucrose is broken down during digestion into fructose and glucose through hydrolysis by the enzyme sucrase, by which the body regulates the rate of sucrose breakdown.[citation needed] Without this regulation mechanism, the body has less control over the rate of sugar absorption into the bloodstream.

Reply
12 replies
\"user-pic\"
Radiating
March 24, 2010 12:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I've posted this up top because the comments get cropped down below.

Julia, I'm a certified sports nutritionist, I had to minor in nutrition from college in addition to a separate program for sports nutrition. Registered Dietitians are have full 4 year degrees in dietics. Their primary purpose is to treat diet related medical problems. Sports nutritionists are actually the best trained and regulated nutritionists.

I think nutritionists are better at giving beauty or fitness advice. I would avoid most dietitian's advice on beauty and fitness and I would avoid most nutritionist's advice on medical issues.

I also have a hard time trusting personal registered dietitians. The majority of registered dietitians work in medical practices, medical research or in industrial settings. See an RD in a medical office if you're going to. If you're seeing an RD personally it means that they weren't skilled enough to get a real job, they'll be poor at giving you personal advice as that's not their specialty and they'll be poor at giving you medical advice because medical practices found a reason not to hire them.

Here's an example of why it's best to use a nutritionist for beauty and fitness goals though:

I had a model who's diet I was managing, she had to lose weight by a certain date for work. I put her on a weight loss plan that would take 10 lbs off her weight in 35 days. She got anxious about it because it was a severe plan and She went and got a second opinion from a registered dietitian and told me how that person said my exact diet over the time period i suggested it could cause infertility, mental illness, organ failure, kidney damage etc etc and the model freaked out at this and planned to quit her job to avoid dieting. The only problem with the registered dietitian's advice was that every single symptom she claimed would happen to my client was accepted by the medical community only to be plausible after at least 60 days of this diet not 35. Besides this several Hollywood actors went on this 35 day diet (Hollywood was where it originated), also I've been on it and Olympic athletes I know have too. The model followed my advice and kept her job after i cleared things up. She's sane, fertile and has healthy organs.

Registered dietitians are taught in school about the science and medicine of the human diet, not how to practically achieve diet goals. In fact most registered dietitians will only give advice based on medical studies which makes their advice nonsensical. I'm allowed to give advice based on experience. An RD would tell you to eat less HFCS to be thinner. I would tell you that's nonsense because that's insignificant on an individual basis and to just eat less food but because there is no study saying eating more food makes you fat an RD couldn't fit that into their model of counseling. I actually had a client who spent years following an RD's advice all based on medical studies. I literally told him to eat less food and he achieved his diet goals in a year after trying hundreds of pointless little things and being frustrated for years.

One time I was also in the room with a athlete who several years later went to the Mr. Universe competition in South Africa. An RD was in the building and walked by my desk. I was advising the athlete to take 700 grams of protein a day. The RD literally screamed at me about how that would destroy the athlete's liver. I had the athlete on more than a dozen vitamins and supplements which made the liver more efficient or boosted it's function all but one of which were accepted and backed up by the medical community . I mentioned this and the RD responded \"oh well then\". He knew everything about active liver protection too but couldn't connect the dots to be helpful and goal oriented and was instead consequence oriented, this demeanor is typical of RD's.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
omega
March 25, 2010 9:25 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Actually, Radiating, you simply took a certificate program at a college that they came up with on their own and slapped the label \"certified sports nutritionist\" on it. There is no governing or ruling body at the state or federal level that handles \"certification\" of \"sports nutritionists\". RD LD's are just that, registered and licensed dietitians who are governed and regulated at the state and federal level.

Nutritionists walk a very thin legal line when they give out dietary advice and some even get arrested for doing just that.

As with any profession, RD/LD's or Nutritionists, you will have your good ones and your bad ones. Bottom line is that in most states you cannot legally offer dietary advice.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Julia789
March 24, 2010 6:33 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Thanks for your super-detailed answer :-)

Reply
\"user-pic\"
speedwell (!)
March 24, 2010 9:43 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Radiating, maybe you can shed some light on something for me. I'm a diabetic who has been looking into the sweetener trehalose recently as an alternative to my standby sugar-replacement sweetener, xylitol. Now I know that xylitol is a sugar alcohol and trehalose is a discahharide, so they aren't the same. What I'm concerned about is how trehalose, a compound formed from two alpha-sucrose molecules, breaks down in the body. It breaks down with the enzyme trehalase into two glucose molecules. Although trehalose is marketed as diabetic-friendly (and it has other desirable health benefits as well), doesn't this mean that the glycemic impact is only delayed, not bypassed? Thanks...

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Radiating
March 24, 2010 11:51 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

You've basically got it right. Sucrose and Trehalose are very similar as you mentioned in that they start being broken down as soon as they enter the small intestine by enzymes. The difference is that the body _usually_ has much less of the enzyme that breaks down Trehalose (Trehalase) so the glycemic effects are anywhere between a sugar alcohol and sugar depending on your physiology though it usually leans towards being like a sugar alcohol. You'll have to do a trial run and see your results.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
speedwell (!)
March 24, 2010 9:56 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Disaccharide. Bleah. Spelling is easy, typing is hard.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Julia789
March 24, 2010 9:15 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Are you a registered dietician? Curious - and no offense intended. My doctor warned me never to take advice from a nutritionist, only a registered dietician. Anyone can call themselves a nutritionist but only those with proper training can legally call themselves a registered dietician. :-)

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ChemicallyInert
March 24, 2010 10:48 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

There is a big difference depending on whether you're a USian or a UKian. (No one cares about Canadians, Irish, and Australians, obviously) Anywho, in the UK, anyone can say, \"I'm a nutritionist\". The protected term there is \"dietitian\". In the US it depends on the state, where nutritionist can be a protected term. My default assumption is that most Consumerists are USians because I'm USian and we're arrogant that way, but Julia789 raises a good question it didn't occur to me to ask.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Julia789
March 24, 2010 11:33 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

In the U.S. the term \"Registered Dietician\" (RD) is the only widely protected one. \"Nutritionist\" can be any number of things but is only legally proteced in a couple of states.

I meant no offense to the writer for asking, I always ask this question when someone says \"nutritionist\" because it can mean any number of things.

Some nutritionists ARE registered dieticians who use the word \"nutritionist\" because it's shorter and easier, and the public knows that word.

Some nutritionists are people who've taken a week long certificate course. Some are nutritional assistants with a trade school or associates degree, who must work under the guidance and supervision of a registered dietician, in certain states.

What I'm getting at is, there is no way to know without asking. Most nutrition professionals are glad that people care enough to ask, and happy to speak about their credentials!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
speedwell (!)
March 24, 2010 10:53 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Logical fallacy for the lose. If the science is correct, it doesn't matter whether the individual is a licensed dietitian, a nutritionist with a mail-order degree, your mother, or my Aunt Sally.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ChemicallyInert
March 24, 2010 11:09 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

It's not a logical fallacy. Radiant brought it up and put it forward as a qualification. We're merely sussing whether that means anything. Also, whether something is a \"good\" or \"bad\" question? Not a matter inherently prone to true-false evaluations since it's a subjective question of subjective qualitative value.

Don't try to out-logic me, I carry Spock ears and I'm not afraid to use them.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
speedwell (!)
March 24, 2010 9:49 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Radiating did not call themselves a registered dietician, Julia. Your doctor may be warning you against scam artists selling dubious remedies, but I hardly imagine that a helpful nutritionist commenting with scientific information in a blog comment is trying to scam you. Feel free to look into the science behind what Radiating is claiming, and make up your own mind. Do you think your doctor would let you use your own brain for something once in a while?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
DoktorGoku
March 24, 2010 11:05 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Surgeon here.

Yes, we encourage our patents to look things up for themselves. However, we also encourage our patients to use proper sources.

I don't know whether Radiating is a nutritionist or Registered Dietician. The science appears sound (it's been a while since I've read up on digestive enzymes, I'll have to refresh myself later), but remember, even homeopaths tuck in a few scientific facts here and there to back up what I think any rational person agrees is their larger pseudo-science.

Basically, there's a reason why certain fields require qualification. That's why we encourage our patients to read for themselves and take advice from qualified, often licensed professionals.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Julia789
March 24, 2010 11:41 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Great post. Do you ever visit the \"Science Based Medicine\" blog? It's one of my favorites. Based on your post, I think you'd like it.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
DoktorGoku
March 24, 2010 2:50 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Heh, I actually hadn't heard of it- but I just now looked it up, and read for 30 min before I realized! It's bookmarked now- thanks much!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ChemicallyInert
March 24, 2010 11:57 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

One of my faves as well. Steve Novella FTW!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ChemicallyInert
March 24, 2010 11:11 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
jeffjohnvol
March 24, 2010 8:13 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I also heard on NPR that the only way we can metabolize fructose is through the liver compared to sucrose that can be metabolized in multiple ways. So Fructose puts an undue strain on the liver.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Terek Kincaid
March 24, 2010 1:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Ok, I worked on this stuff as a grad student, and here's the best hypothesis to date. Sucrose is made of one molecule of glucose and one molecule of fructose. High fructose corn syrup, as its name implies, has a higher ratio of fructose. Glucose is phosphorylated in the liver by glucosekinase. The resulting glucose-6-phosphate is metabolized in about 5 different pathways, including glycolysis and glycogen storage. Fructose is phosphorylated by fructokinase to form fructose-1-phosphate. This molecule is only metabolized by one pathway; it enters about halfway through the glycolytic pathway. The end product of glycolysis, pyruvate, ends up in fat production. Thus, if you eat too much glucose, they glycolytic pathway will back up and the excess will get shunted to storage, nucleotide production, etc. If you get too much fructose, it's can only go to fat production. Having a higher ratio of fructose to glucose in your drink, candybar, etc., is going to increase fat accumulation in your liver and your serum triglyceride levels. So, the more fructose, the worse off you are.

And we've known this stuff for 10 years or more. Spead the word.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
AnthonyC
March 24, 2010 8:23 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

The liver is also essential for the breakdown of proteins and fats, though. Nothing unusual there, or unique to HFCS.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
OmniZero
March 24, 2010 9:10 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Sugar can be absorbed into cells directly and used as energy. HFCS must go into the liver where it is turned to fat, and then that fat needs to be broken down into energy. Too many steps there.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
WayneB
March 24, 2010 10:10 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

HFCS is a blend of both glucose and fructose. Typically it is 55% fructose. Glucose can be absorbed by cells and used as energy, and stored as glycogen in the liver for later energy. The fructose has to be processed by the liver, which results in several bad things, in other words, fructose is a poison. Fructose is like alcohol, with many of the same long term problematic effects and none of the short term effects. On the other hand, table sugar (sucrose) is a disaccharide combining one molecule of glucose with one molecule of fructose. In the early stages of digestion the disaccharide bond is easily broken, then it becomes glucose and fructose and the body continues to process it just like HFCS. So, up until now, they've been saying that HFCS is technically no worse than table sugar; if a person had consumed as much table sugar instead of all the HFCS they've consumed since its introduction in the '70s then they would have all the same health problems. The obesity epidemic has been blamed on the ridiculous volume of HFCS, as it is found everywhere.

But this study says they have found HFCS and table sugar did not have the same outcome in rats. The HFCS was worse. There must be an as-yet unrealized difference between HFCS and table sugar.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ChemicallyInert
March 24, 2010 10:52 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Just a minor clarification since your last statement was a little ambiguous.There is no \"as yet unrealized\" difference between refined cane sugar and HFCS. Chemically all the differences are pretty much understood. The difference is in how they are metabolized.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
gazeux
March 24, 2010 8:10 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Give us back our slimming cane sugar!

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Radiating
March 24, 2010 8:11 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

As a nutritionist I can easily explain their findings which have been known for a while with a simple copy and paste from Wikipedia's HFCS entry:

A molecule of sucrose (with a chemical formula of C12H22O11) can be broken down into a molecule of glucose (C6H12O6) plus a molecule of fructose (also C6H12O6 — an isomer of glucose) in a weakly acidic environment. Sucrose is broken down during digestion into fructose and glucose through hydrolysis by the enzyme sucrase, by which the body regulates the rate of sucrose breakdown.[citation needed] Without this regulation mechanism, the body has less control over the rate of sugar absorption into the bloodstream.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
ChemicallyInert
March 24, 2010 10:38 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

...and as a scientist I would like to point out that this is only a best guess until verified by experiment. Don't get me wrong, I find this study compelling, but I'll be damned if there weren't a ton of crappy studies (including the ones paid for by the corn industry) before this. I just really friggin' hate it when people approach questions about what are really complex systems with a smug certainty about the answer. Metabolism isn't a simple process. A point-to-point map, not showing the mechanisms, but only showing the chain of events from one mechanism to the next of the Kreb's cycle is dizzyingly complex. Throw that into a warm mammalian body and you've got yourself a nice little nightmare.

Also, I may be slightly misdirecting my anger at you in this reply, but what can I say- a peeve is a peeve.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
speedwell (!)
March 24, 2010 10:56 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Stay peeved, science guy. :) Just realize that some laymen are not stupid and are capable of understanding much of the science involved, if you feel like coming down off your ivory tower and explaining it to us instead of sniffing that we can never properly understand your arcane mysteries.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ChemicallyInert
March 24, 2010 12:23 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Laymen aren't stupid. But, they've also got shit to do. It's not that explaining is difficult or tedious. My blog is linked in my profile and I created it in part to explain science. However, you get to a certain point and your explanations eventually hit the Big Black Box of Knowledge Acquired by Time Invested. At a certain point you have to say things like, \"Well, it gets insanely complicated and you need to know calculus, linear algebra, and be able to grok a hundred counter-intuitive derivations to get the answer, but basically you have to trust me that x,y,z is true because I've done/understood all the math and science and I say it's true.\" It's not that laymen are stupid, it's that they're laypeople! If they knew as much as a professional or knowledgeable amateur they'd no longer be laypeople.

Anyone can acquire knowledge, but if you don't have the time because you decided to go be good at doing something other than science then chances are you're going to have to settle for summary and authority. This is why people take qualifications and certifications seriously. Medical boards usually protect laypeople from incompetent people who claim to be doctors, bar associations usually protect laypeople from incompetent people who claim to be lawyers, plumbing licenses usually protect laypeople from incompetent people who claim to be able to fix pipes. In science, because it is necessarily about the evidence, there is no certification process. Either you're right or you're wrong. Sometimes, we just don't know. The only way for a layperson to make decisions is to ultimately look to broad surveys of scientific consensus. It's not because they're necessarily right, but because they have the greatest chance of being right.

I had a discussion with a friend of mine about evolution once. He brought up that we don't know how muscles work. I pointed out that we do. He then pointed out that we don't know on an atomic level. I pointed out that actually, we DO. How do we know? The short answer is that we've seen it using electron microscopes that confirm well-established principles of biochemistry. He didn't, but if he had asked, how we knew the electron micrographs were right, the discussion would have quickly spiraled into, \"Just trust me on this.\"

Now, we had a completely different discussion about what business practices are profitable and I found myself quickly on the opposite end of this phenomenon. Now I was the ignorant layman. The man went to business school and I quickly went out of my depth in a discussion of business. I know I'm smart enough to understand it. But, let's face it, I'm not going to get around to it. So I'm simply going to believe him and accept his seemingly insufficient summarized explanation until I have reason to do otherwise. All of this is just to say that we need to respect knowledge and expertise more than we do, and be skeptical of the rhetoric that so frequently surrounds it.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
ander_bobo
March 24, 2010 8:13 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

It's so annoying that it is in EVERYTHING. I tell my mother to avoid it and she buys the \"healthy bread\" and, what do you know, guess what the number 4 ingredient is... HFCS! I'm pretty much eating entirely whole foods right now because that is easier than looking for the 12 things in the supermarket that dont' have HFCS or trans fat in them.

Reply
8 replies
\"user-pic\"
AstroPig7
March 24, 2010 10:43 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Oroweat also lacks HFCS. Plus, their whole wheat bread is quite tasty!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
LastError
March 24, 2010 1:16 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Orowheat is known as Arnold in many areas. The brands are not the same company but they sort of co-market and use the same logos and share many of the same recipes.

Anyway they both have HFCS-free varieties. If it lacks HFCS, there will be a banner proudly proclaiming it on the package.

Costco also sells HFCS-free bread under their Kirkland brand, which is not only good but also inexpensive.

Bread brands that don't give a damn are much more common. Most of them don't care.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Dre'
March 24, 2010 9:18 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

The Arnold brand bread I buy doesn't have HFCS in it.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
whogots
March 24, 2010 12:01 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

You have to watch out for Arnold, though -- not all of their varieties are HFCS-free. It's annoying; I wish they'd pick a policy and stick with it.

At least they tout it on the front of the packaging, so if you don't see the no-HFCS boast on an Arnold product, you can be pretty sure the it has HFCS.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
HungryGal
March 24, 2010 9:15 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

It is. I've had to switch to bread from the 'in store bakery' area instead of the 'bakery shelf' to find bread that doesn't have hfcs and 15 other ingredients in it. At first I felt \"this bread is all different sizes, there's no way there's 100 calories in each of these\" and then I realized that's not what I should be worrying about.

I also stood in front of a case of Healthy Choice meals on sale for 5/$10, and couldn't bring myself to buy them for the first time in my life. Instead I've been sticking with vegetable heavy, leftover based home made lunches (to be microwaved at work), which has been easier than I was expecting. Today it's leftover mashed potatoes, bbqed succotash, and cabbage slaw.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
TouchMyMonkey
March 24, 2010 8:27 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Lots of Healthy Choice stuff has HFCS in it as well. Real nice, and you thought you were going to eat this stuff and lose some weight.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
cabjf
March 24, 2010 8:22 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

But maybe if it gets enough bad press it will become the next Trans Fat and everyone will be taking it out of their products.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ander_bobo
March 24, 2010 8:30 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

The problem with trans fat though is that even products WITH trans fat can market themselves as \"trans fat free\" if they contain less than .2g of it per serving. So companies are either limiting it or reducing serving size to get away with marketing it as trans fat free. Another reason why label reading is so important!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Kuchen
March 24, 2010 8:59 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Actually, I think it's less than 0.5 g per serving that can be labelled as \"trans fat free\". Either way, still so important to read labels!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
NotATool
March 24, 2010 10:10 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Yep, less than 0.5g per serving you can say \"0% trans fat\". Check out the ingredients -- if you see partially hydrogenated oils, then there are trans fats.

You may say 0.5g per serving isn't much, but when you consider that it's best not to consume more than 2g per day, you're only talking about 4 servings of so-called \"0% trans fat\" foods.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
An_Album_Cover
March 24, 2010 8:14 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Arstechnica has a pretty scathing critique of the methodology of this study, and it sounds like it's pretty much on the mark. They emphasize that poor execution of the study doesn't invalidate previous studies, but it certainly casts question on the results of this one. Also, they have a link to the original journal article, which is behind a pay wall.

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2010/03/does-high-fructose-corn-syrup-make-you-fatter.ars

Reply
6 replies
\"user-pic\"
subtlefrog
March 24, 2010 11:38 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

On the contrary. I read the paper, and if you look at the results, they begin to diverge. Weight gain is similar at first, as you would expect - it's highly improbable that there would be any difference right off the bat. It's only over time that you start to see differences - and they will be small, as they are in humans. Weight gain is generally a slow process.

Is this the end all-be all study? Of course not. But not including a treatment with no statistical significant trail in the second experiment doesn't invalidate anything. And the fact that males and females (rats, humans, whatever) gain weight differently is well know - which is why they looked at them separately.

I suspect it will be a while before anyone agrees on anything, but at least it's a study not funded by big agriculture.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
npage148
March 24, 2010 12:43 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

\"But not including a treatment with no statistical significant trail in the second experiment doesn't invalidate anything.\"

It does not invalidate anything but it makes their conclusions drawn from the data a far strech. Figure 1. There is no 12h sucrose control the only conclusion you can make from that data is that any sugar supplementation increased weight again against a chow diet. Figure 3. There is no ad lib. sucrose control to compare the ad lib HFCS tretment to. I'll conclude that ad lib sugar supplementation increases weight gain compared to the other treatments. Also if you notice the 12h sucrose is not different than the 12h HFCS.

It's easy to see that sugar caused accelerated weight gain but this data (fig 1/3) can't distiguish between HFCS and sucrose. Same issue with fig 2 adn 4

Reply
\"user-pic\"
npage148
March 24, 2010 12:47 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

oh and to add. If it is not statistically different then it's not different. It can be diverging all it wants but w/o statistical significance, it's not different

Reply
\"user-pic\"
keen314
March 24, 2010 10:21 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

You beat me to it. I'm glad I'm not the only reader of Ars around here.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
npage148
March 24, 2010 9:12 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I was about to say the same thing. I read the actual paper, not the press release and the conclusions they make are VERY hard and sketchy to draw from their results. They try to compare things which are not the same and the methods are lacking. From my interpretation of the results, I would say that HFCS behaves the sames as sucrose. The only time HFCS was different than control or sucrose is when they had extended access to it.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
CheritaChen
March 24, 2010 10:49 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Since I can't access the full study article at the moment, I'm glad someone else has so I can weigh the accuracy of Ars's interpretation vs. the published summary. Can I add that people who are supposed to be scientists who do sloppy work like this should be repeatedly bashed over the head with a two-by-four? WTF is wrong with these people? Taking all this time, and doing experiments on animals (to include later dissecting them), and spending research money, and they can't fucking do it right? If you're going to fuck with animals for the sake of \"research,\" at least know what the hell you're doing.

Sorry, I guess this hit a nerve.

Anyway, I'm still leery of HFCS as opposed to sucrose, but it remains an unvalidated gut feeling for now. And this doesn't change the truth that there's way too much sugar of all types in our foods.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
speedwell (!)
March 24, 2010 9:53 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Thanks, folks. It's as important to critically evaluate studies with desirable \"results\" as it is to critically evaluate those that aren't as appealing.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
jeffjohnvol
March 24, 2010 8:14 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

A big part of the problem is the US Government. They subsidize the corn industry AND they put high tarriffs on sugar imports. Take that out of the equation and we would have much less HFCS.

But they would rather concentrate on mythology of anthropogenic global warming than obesity caused by their own policies.

Reply
7 replies
\"user-pic\"
Difdi
March 24, 2010 3:14 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

It's not off-topic to point out why HFCS is so prevalent in American foods.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
TouchMyMonkey
March 24, 2010 8:46 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

That's because people still believe the myth of the family farm, the era of which has passed long ago. This myth makes farm subsidies a third rail in American politics. I think the current administration is on to this, though, and wants to limit the size of any farm eligible for subsidies of any kind. I agree with the President that ConAgra doesn't need help from the taxpayers to grow corn. We'll see how the next farm bill comes out.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Doncosmic
March 24, 2010 11:19 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

The other thing that makes farm subsidies a third rail is the disproportionate influence that the Iowa presidential primary has

Reply
\"user-pic\"
MaytagRepairman
March 24, 2010 11:39 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Uh yeah, we really helped Huckabee. If you want to stick it to Iowa and I think you would be better off blaming Tom Harkin and Chuck Grassley.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Bohemian
March 24, 2010 10:48 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Oh gods yes.
It drives me crazy to see people listing Manhattan addresses getting farm subsidies. If they are intended for family farmers limit them to families that actually own and WORK farms for their livelihood.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
AnthonyC
March 24, 2010 8:28 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

AGW is as much a consequence of government policy as obesity is- both are consequences of both public and private decisions. We subsidize both corn production and fossil fuel use, and Behold! we use too much of both. Then we let private businesses earn all the profits while the public is left holding the check for pollution and the diseases of obesity, and Behold! the same people who didn't want to force companies to internalize the externalities of their business through regulation or taxes now complain that there's no money to solve the problem.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Sajanas
March 24, 2010 9:58 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Sorry, I'd rather read things that come from Science, Nature, and PNAS rather than someones angelfire site.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Difdi
March 24, 2010 3:19 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Yeah, because individual citizens are always liars, while government officials are always truthful. Just ask Stalin, Hitler, Mao...

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
divedeep
March 24, 2010 8:15 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

How will the big agriculture / corn lobbyists spin this news? I'll bet they continue with their current argument - that HFCS is \"fine in moderation.\"

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
stanfrombrooklyn
March 24, 2010 9:27 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I read that over 90% of food advertised to children under the age of 12 has HFCS as one of its main ingredients.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
friendlynerd
March 24, 2010 9:02 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Too bad it's practically unavoidable and in everything everywhere.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
bonzombiekitty
March 24, 2010 8:15 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

But...but... the ads on TV tell me that HFCS is \"chemically identical\" to regular sugar, that it's \"natural\", and that it's \"just as safe\" as regular sugar. Are you telling me the high fructose corn sugar producers are lying to me?

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
Difdi
March 24, 2010 3:51 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Given how chemistry is about structures of atoms and shapes of molecules...anyone who tells you that HFCS is chemically identical to cane sugar is lying.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
PSUKardi
March 24, 2010 8:26 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

About as much as Obama when he said people would have 5 days to read things on his desk....

Reply
\"user-pic\"
JulesNoctambule
March 24, 2010 11:51 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Is 'Suddenly, unrelated political commentary!' a square on the Consumerist Bingo card? If not, it ought to be.

Reply
","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
ilves
March 24, 2010 8:32 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Although I've been avoiding HFCS's like a plague already, this doesn't really prove anything as it was a study done in mice. Although its very likely the results will be similar in humans, you never know until you actually do it and assuming it to be the case can get you in troubel.

Reply
1 replies
","
\"user-pic\"
LadyTL
March 24, 2010 8:35 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

This of course assumes that everyone's body acts exactly the same way and that every element of diet can be changed to the same effect as everyone else.

Reply
4 replies
\"user-pic\"
Difdi
March 24, 2010 3:28 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Did you even RTFA? That's kinda the point of the study findings. They got a variety of effects on weight gain from the rats on the high fat diet, and the high sucrose diet. But every rat on the HFCS diet, without exception, became obese.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
LadyTL
March 24, 2010 9:11 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

The article didn't actually link to the study findings so we don't know if they tried this on different species of rats or just a large group of the same kind of rats. Unlike rats though Humans will react differently when you get a group of them together.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Conformist138
March 25, 2010 3:49 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Rats will also act differently. Humans are not the only \"little snowflakes\" out there. Anyone who has been around rats for reasearch or owned pet rats (I fall into the latter category) will tell you they are not all cookie-cutters that react the same way to everything. In fact, the article clearly states that the study showed on high-fat diets, they varied in weight gain. That shows right there that rats can and will react to diet in unique ways. That a population of rats (would have to be of the same variety to count as valid science) on HFCS didn't react in a variety of ways, but all gained weight together, is pretty awful. Poisons are considered \"bad\" for everyone, despite our unique reactions, and it appears HFCS is something like a poison that could, by it's very nature, cause most people to balloon into small hippos. Since so many foods have it, controlling it's consumption can be difficult. Time to really stay away from junk, especially if it's sweet. Go buy an apple.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
speedwell (!)
March 24, 2010 10:20 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

That's generally a pretty safe assumption, absent complicating factors that a doctor would be aware of. No therapy works one hundred percent of the time, but you are not always God's special little exception. Naturally, the most common whine of people who think doctors should be omniscient mind readers rather than educated troubleshooters with a scientific outlook is that \"everyone's different, so doctors can't ever really know what they're doing.\" It wouldn't kill you (and in fact might save you) to provide your doctor with the prompt, meaningful information and feedback he needs to see whether a given therapy is working for you.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
LadyTL
March 24, 2010 9:19 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

The complications thing though is my point. Everyone has stuff in their health that makes them react differently than others. Humans have hundreds of things that can affect health with thousands of combinations of these. You can't rubber stamp your way through health without it failing to effect large portions of a population. Every year there is something new that is now bad for you and something that is bad for you is now good.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
The hand that feeds, now with more bacon
March 24, 2010 8:44 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

...Isn't this old news? I've been hearing HFCS is bad for you since I was a kid (like 10-15 years ago).

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
qbubbles
March 24, 2010 8:49 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

*blink*

*eyes her glass of lipton tea warily*

*turns bottle around*

Sugar! Woohoo!

*guzzle guzzle*

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Plasmafox
March 24, 2010 9:03 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

And here I told everyone it would be another 5-10 years before someone actually got off their ass and did some studies on it. I've figured from the beginning this would be the next MSG. Simply because there's so much money involved.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Worsel
March 24, 2010 9:03 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I've been avoiding all corn products for lent and it really is amazing how much we consume is made with corn products. HFCS is in the most bizarre things.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
SenorBob
March 24, 2010 11:57 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Yeah, try doing it EVERY YEAR for Passover. On average I lose about 5 pounds each year. Of course, it all comes right back, but that's neither here nor there.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
HungryGal
March 24, 2010 9:10 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

It's a chemical substance created in a factory. It doesn't exist in nature. If you think about it that way, ti's not surprising at all that our bodies don't know what the frack to do with it!

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
LastError
March 24, 2010 1:24 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I would agree, except... sometime you need to check out what goes into making what we call table sugar.

Hint: the process of taking sugar cane and turning it into little white granular powder is about an industrialized and complex as ANY refining process can be. Refining is a good word for it, because it's a lot closer to what goes into making oil or gasoline than pretty much any other food process.

It is FAR away from simply picking up sugar cane and shaking it until little sugar bits fall out.

After watching it happen, I am still shocked that anyone ever figured out how to make table sugar in the first place. None of the steps are in any way obvious to me.

That being said, sugar does exist naturally. The process merely presents it in a useful way.

HFCS, on the other hand, is not natural. Without the process to make it, it would not exist at all.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
speedwell (!)
March 24, 2010 10:26 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

If by \"doesn't exist in nature\" you mean that it isn't picked off of a plant or secreted by an animal, you might be right. But if by \"doesn't exist in nature\" you mean \"could never have come into being all by itself without the evil contamination called science,\" I suggest you give up all of your technology and social cooperation structures, and go live your short and brutish life in a cave in a national park somewhere.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
GitEm$teveDave
March 24, 2010 9:53 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Regular table sugar is a disaccharide of glucose and fructose, which means that the two monosaccharides are chemically bound into a larger, more complex disaccharide molecule called sucrose. That's sugar. HFCS consists of the same two monosaccharides, only they're just mixed in together, the molecules are not bound.

Reply
","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
morganlh85
March 24, 2010 9:26 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I knew those Corn Refiners Association commercials were a bunch of bullcrap.

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
cmdr.sass
March 24, 2010 9:29 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

The test was conducted by a psychology professor? Was any test conducted by a real scientist?

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
samandiriel
March 24, 2010 9:59 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

There are therapeutic psychologists, and then there are research psychologists. Having worked as an RA in a psych lab, I can assure you that the latter are real scientists.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
GitEm$teveDave
March 24, 2010 10:20 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

YEs, but Shhhhhh, don't tell Phil, because then he might have to disclose it.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
GitEm$teveDave
March 24, 2010 9:30 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Well, besides the fact that this is a PSYCHOLOGY study, performed by a psychologist, what I wonder is what HFCS did they use? There are two HFCS's used: HFCS 55, which is 55% fructose, and has a sweetness comparable to sugar and is used mainly in soft drinks or HFCS 42, which is 42% fructose, and is a little less sweet than sugar and is used in most other foods?

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
subtlefrog
March 24, 2010 11:41 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Well, no reason to get your panties in a wad, SteveDave. A lot of biologists end up in psych departments, the fields have merged quite a lot. Just because he's in PSYCH means nothing.

They used 8% HFCS of Nature's Flavors Formula 55, since you asked.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
GitEm$teveDave
March 24, 2010 4:49 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Your brain is so sexy. I just had to say that.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
Kid Awesome
March 24, 2010 9:48 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

What!?!?!? Soda and swets are bad for you now?

What's next, airlines start screwing people over?

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
dorianh49
March 24, 2010 1:10 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Yes, soda is bad for you. Swets are bad because they're usually stained with soda and Cheetos and, by wearing them, you've basically given up trying to lose weight, or impress anyone of the opposite sex, or move out of your parents basement. Not that I'm bitter or depressed or anything.

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Loias calls you out if you can't RTFA
March 24, 2010 9:54 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Nice to see HFCS is finally be revealed for what it is.

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
ResearchGuy
March 24, 2010 10:55 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Thank G_d for Kosher-for-passover Pepsi. It's made with real sugar. I usually stock up with a few bottles.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Japheaux
March 24, 2010 10:55 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

If we were rats we could listen to the Ivy Leaguer. I missed his mentioning of the lack of exercise and physically labor society gets over the past 35 years with the invention of electronic toys that do everything but wipe our butts.

It's easy to blame specific foods/ingredients, but there is way too much more to obesity that corn syrup. I'd be curious to see the blood stats on the segment of population that exercises religiously and doesn't give a damn about corn syrup.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
BigHeadEd
March 24, 2010 10:55 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

This is plain and simple a cost issue. The US food industry uses HFCS because it is cheaper than sugar with its government mandated tariffs, hence the use of sugar in Mexicoke.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
tekenen
March 24, 2010 11:02 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Perhaps it would be practical to dump HFCS if Congress would end the tariffs on sugar imports. How many people know that we are paying in excess of double the amount for the sugar we use then the rest of the world? It's no wonder that people have turned to HFCS. Perhaps this research to help convince Congress to stop making us sicker.

Reply
","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
evilpete
March 24, 2010 11:39 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Maybe some cities will ban HFCS along with there trans fat bans

Reply
","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
kehills
March 24, 2010 11:53 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Arstechnica is not the only place critiquing this as a very flawed study. Marion Nestle, the Paulette Goddard Professor in the Department of Nutrition, Food Studies, and Public Health, as well as a professor of Sociology, over at NYU, posted a critique where she was actually (painfully) forced to agree with the Corn Refiners Association on the invalidity of the study.

She says

How they came to these conclusions is beyond me. Here’s the original paper.

It has long been known that feeding sugars to rats makes them eat more and gain weight. But, as summarized in Table 1 in the paper, the researchers did only two experiments that actually compared the effects of HFCS to sucrose on weight gain, and these gave inconsistent results. Their other experiments compared HFCS to chow alone.

The study is extremely complicated and confusingly described. As best as I can tell, here’s what they found:

1. The first study used 10 male rats in each group and observed them for 8 weeks. At the end of the study, the rats fed chow alone weighed 462 grams. The rats fed sucrose plus chow weighed 477±9 grams. The rats fed HFCS plus chow weighed 502±11 grams. The authors say the difference between 477 and 502 grams is statistically significant. But these rats were offered the sugars for 12 hours per day. The rats fed HFCS for 24 hours per day, which should be expected to be fatter, were not. They weighed less (470 grams) than the rats fed sucrose for 12 hours per day. So these results are inconsistent.

2. The second study did not compare rats eating HFCS to rats eating sucrose. It just looked at the effects of HFCS in groups of 8 male rats.

3. The third study used female rats (number not given) and observed them for 7 months. At the end of the study period, female rats fed HFCS plus chow for 12 hours a day weighed 323±9 grams. Female rats fed sucrose plus chow under the same conditions weighed 333±10 grams. This result is not statistically significant.

Although the authors say calorie intake was the same, they do not report calories consumed nor do they discuss how they determined that calorie intake was the same. This is an important oversight because measuring the caloric intake of lab rats is notoriously difficult to do (they are messy).

So, I’m skeptical. I don’t think the study produces convincing evidence of a difference between the effects of HFCS and sucrose on the body weight of rats. I’m afraid I have to agree with the Corn Refiners on this one.

So does HFCS make rats fat? Sure if you feed them too many calories altogether. Sucrose will do that too.


Dr. Nestle has been pretty against HFCS in both her blog and her work, so the fact that she is agreeing with the Corn Refiners Association, that this is a meaningless study, is significant.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Norskman
March 24, 2010 11:55 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I think it's funny when sites like Arstechnica use their geek power to discredit a scientific paper without actually demonstrating an understanding of diets and metabolic behavior in the human body. They should stick to what they do best, technology.

That said, let's look at a few things. The food companies, the 4 huge conglomerates that have exploded over the last few decades due to fast food, mess with food. They screw with sugar to get a new, sweeter and cheaper sugar and start pumping it into everything.

At the same time people balloon, getting fatter and fatter while diabetes run rampant, exploding in the younger population as well. Come on, are people really so daft that they can not see a correlation here? You don't have to be a scientist to understand something is going on. I refuse to believe the hype from the food companies that people are just eating more and moving less all of a sudden. Sure it plays a role, but not to this degree.

Sugar is bad for you in large quantities. This has been proven. There are countless studies basically saying consumption of sugar in larger quantities is like being addicted to a drug. They are talking about Fructose. Guess what High Fructose Corn Syrup has more of than a natural sugar - Fructose.

Now wait until they start putting a Fructose based product into everything you consume, essentially making you consume more sugar than you really want to, which without a doubt negatively affects your body and makes you fat and dependant on sugar products. Oh wait, they already did, those sneaky bastards. HFCS is in everything.

Since going through our cupboards about a year ago, throwing out every product with HFCS in it, and avoiding anything containing HFCS, my wife and I have lost over 60lbs combined. We have not made any other life style changes. No more exercise, no eating healthier, other than avoiding HFCS.

I don't have a secret agenda. I don't work for an anti-HFCS organization. I just believe it's really, really bad for you to eat lots of food infused with HFCS, and there is absolutely NO reason you should be eating it. If you don't believe me, why don't you try not eating foods containing HFCS for a few months and see if it makes a difference on your weight.

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
anewmachine615
March 24, 2010 1:17 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Ars Technica finds the Princeton study questionable. http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2010/03/does-high-fructose-corn-syrup-make-you-fatter.ars

They do a lot of really good science reporting there, so I believe them over you, thanks. I'll put it down for \"maybe.\"

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
keen314
March 24, 2010 5:38 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Yeah, one of the early comments liked Ars too. Consumerist, like so many publications, cares not for science, they prefer flashy science-related headlines. Bah.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
sybann
March 24, 2010 2:03 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Don't buy processed ANYTHING. Cook for yourself. Make the time. The pounds will fall off.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
thebaron
March 24, 2010 2:05 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

What those lovely High Fructose Corn Syrup ads are lying about it being just a good as sugar? Why do I know people that hunt for throwback coke or mt dew (or kosher coke).

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Span_Wolf
March 24, 2010 6:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Say no to hard pour corn!

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
dgcaste
March 24, 2010 10:42 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Where's the data? I don't want to hear the interpretation of these results if it doesn't include the weights of these rats.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
jerry101
March 25, 2010 8:13 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

what about when the rats consume a high sugar diet?

High fat diets don't cause obesity. It's a myth that's based in a poorly built economic regression analysis back before there were spreadsheet programs to do the analysis and the regression was done by hand.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
guymandude
April 22, 2010 3:49 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

There's HFCS in canned Kidney beans.... WTF is the deal with that?!

Reply
");