More and more often, I’m seeing obesity attributed to the evils of HFCS. “Mexican Coke” isn’t made from corn syrup. Is it less fattening than American Coke?
Going further south, columbian coke is non-fattening.
They get fat on the profits.
It has less fructose, but the same total sugar content. There’s only weak evidence for that mattering, and the bulk of evidence is that it doesn’t.
The real problem with HFCS is that it’s a cheap additive which leads to more sugar in foods, replacing it with “better” sugar is an idiot’s game.
Mexican Coke Zero isn’t fattening.
Nope. Regular Mexican Coca Cola is crammed with calories. Some of us save soft drinks for occasional treats–and prefer the taste of cane sugar. (Some Mexican Coke is made with HFCS–read the label!)
And it tastes better than Diet Mexican Coke.
The actual problem with HFCS is that it’s a cheap additive that’s slapped into a lot of foods, so things you wouldn’t expect to be sugary have added sugar, things that should have some sugar have a lot, and you get used to food that’s a lot sweeter than natural. It’s not chemically different than other forms of fructose, and fructose is not very different from other common sugars. The idea that making a cola with the same sugar content as US coke but getting that sugar from cane instead of HFCS results in a healthier or less fattening drink is a myth.
It’s definitely not less fattening , and it isn’t healthier in general, but sugar doesn’t make my husband’s gout act up like HCFS does.
“sugar” is 50% fructose. I think you’re missing an evaluation of the amount of sugar ingested in your analysis.
I’ve heard it’s quite more-ish though.
An interesting bit I heard on NPR a few months ago … humans evolved not adding calories with their liquid drinks … only water was available … so the “hungry” calls from the brain aren’t turned off when liquids are drank …
Here lies the problem with soda pop … the drinker gets the calories they need, but the brain keeps saying they’re hungry … so they sit down and eat a meal … thus the individual is pumping down twice the calories they need … and this is fattening …
Soda pop is fine as an occasional treat … but it’s no substitute for plain water … and I believe caffeine is added to soda pop … which is mildly addictive … maybe if you’re drinking more than a couple a week, you might consider yourself addicted … “The first step in solving a problem is admitting you have a problem” …
And the HFCS most commonly added to soft drinks is a whopping 55%! Ooh, sounds so evil…
What gets even more interesting is when you also consider that fruit juices have about as much sugar as the same amount of soda. This makes sense when you think about how many fruits had to be juiced to make a cup of juice. Sugar is more or less sugar, so fruit juices are only healthier than sodas in the sense that they have more vitamins and that other stuff. But you’d be better off getting the healthy stuff from just eating a single piece of fruit.
I don’t think I said that fructose itself is the issue because I’m not sure it is - it could be something in the approximately 45% of HCFS that isn’t fructose that isn’t also present in cane sugar.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It is a common misconception that the “high fructose” in HFCS means that is high in fructose compared to regular sugar. It actually means that it is high in fructose compared to regular corn syrup which is very low in fructose (being mostly glucose).
It might be argued that sucrose, where each molecule is a glucose bonded to a fructose, is metabolically different from a 50/50 mixture of the two, but sucrose is quickly decomposed into the two early in digestion, making a biological difference unlikely.
But there’s not anything. Cane sugar is a 50/50 ratio of glucose and fructose; HFCS is somewhere around 45% glucose and 55% fructose.
Just to flesh out HFCS’s composition:
The vast majority of that 45% (at least 40%) is glucose. For comparison, sugar (sucrose) is 50/50 fructose and glucose.
There is some evidence the HFCS has a much lower “satiety rating”" than sucrose.
Thus, yes, from drinking a single 16oz bottle there is no significant difference.
BUT if that evidence is correct then you might instead drink a 32 oz soda. Thus double the calories.
Anecdotal, when I was a kid, Moms all said: “dont drink soda before your meal . It will ruin you appetite!”, and soda came in tiny 7oz bottles for Coke. And it did ruin my appetite, because of course I drank it anyway.
But now sodas are commonly 32oz and even bigger.
Maybe there’s something to that study.
And then there’s evidence that it doesn’t, such as this study: “Energy balance consequences of HFCS-sweetened soft drinks are not different from those of other isoenergetic drinks, eg, a sucrose-drink or milk.” http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/86/6/1586.full
To my knowledge this study better represents the overall status of our knowledge. If you know of any summaries that support the idea that HFCS has a much lower, or just statistically lower effect on satiety I suggest you post those.