Someone is going to be unhappy with any of the $85 billion in this year’s sequester cuts. I guess we’ll see how it shakes out.
@longprime thanks for "@barkydog
Because Pepsi (throwback) and CocaCola(Mexican derived) are beverages that Boomers remember. There is a flavor difference-IMO, mostly in the mouthfeel and initial sweetness.
Other carbonated flavors as RC, Rootbeer, 7up, and that Southern prune stuff, are minor drinks where ingredient costs are more important.
If I remember, Sucrose sugar in colas will eventually become glucose and fructose, but since most of the colas are made and drank soon after blending, the conversion is not normally noticeable. "
But perhaps you overlook the high fructos corn syrup downside, "Since HFCS’s widespread introduction in the 1980’s North American obesity rates have skyrocketed. Obesity has been linked to may heath issues including heart disease and many forms of cancer. When HFCS is ingested, it travels straight to the liver which turns the sugary liquid into fat, and unlike other carbohydrates HFCS does not cause the pancreas to produce insulin; which acts as a hunger quenching signal to the brain. So we get stuck in a vicious cycle, eating food that gets immediately stored as fat and never feeling full.
Read more: http://healthmad.com/nutrition/dangers-of-high-fructose-corn-syrup/#ixzz2OUczjyFu
Aspartamine , phenylalanine is not a healthy substitute. http://www.livestrong.com/article/363926-what-are-the-side-effects-of-phenylalanine-aspartame/
And sugar is bad?
I first ran into phenylalanine as a drug of choice in treating depression in the 70’s
Personal experience of me and my buds at work, throwback tastes better and satisfies thirst better.
" Someone is going to be unhappy with any of the $85 billion in this year’s sequester cuts. I guess we’ll see how it shakes out. "
To me it’s a little like dropping a nickel and not bothering to bend down and look for it.
The crowd who supports tax and spend are squealing like stuck pigs, though.
Now that they can move the cuts around it won’t make a hill of beans of difference in wasteful goverment endeavors. It’ll be good practice for the inevitable major cuts coming either by choice or necessity.
CSA
“To me it’s a little like dropping a nickel and not bothering to bend down and look for it.
The crowd who supports tax and spend are squealing like stuck pigs, though.”
Many thrifty Republicans that in principal support the sequester do not support the adverse effects in their districts.
Wlaker the treason party candidate has not supported anything that supports a regular person
" Wlaker the treason party candidate has not supported anything that supports a regular person "
? Translation, please.
CSA
@shadowfox…
"get in touch with…"
It worked well here in Maine with a couple or RINOS.
@rodknox
Or how about “govt. always gets in the way…but I couldn’t have made it through school without govt. loans”
Folks shouldn’t kid themselves. HFCS is about 50:50 fructose/glucose, depending on the particular blend. Guess what sucrose is, once it’s in your body? 50:50! The mania over HFCS confuses the problems resulting from high sugar consumption, which are severe, and the problems over what kind of sugar, which is a waste of time. No sugar is a ‘good’ sugar.
Speaking of dropping a nickel. Once on a family farm the middle son opened the door to the outhouse and saw his older brother leaning over and looking into the pit and then dropping a dollar in. The younger brother asked him what he was doing throwing away a dollar. The older brother told him that he had accidentally dropped a dime in but wasn’t going to climb down there for just a dime, therefore…
The entire subject of ethanol, lobbiests, washington corruption, and the resultant government oblivious to the real needs of the people that elect them and only out for themselves upsets me to the pit of my stomach. All I can say is that the entire system is frigged up beyond all hope. The ethanol scam is just one example of the cesspool that the Beltway has become.
@texases "…,the problems of what kind of sugar, which is a waste of time"
FYI
If we must make ethanol from grain, Perhaps we can stockpile it in case we run out of bourbon or 151.
@dagosa - I was basing my comments on those of a diet specialist concerned about sugar intake.
While the Princeton study is interesting, WHY didn’t they conduct an equal comparison? They purposely introduced unequal conditions:
" 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 the second study only looked at fructose, no comparison to sucrose.
^ HFCS is sweeter than sugar. The same concentration of straight fructose to sugar, would be too sweet to be drinkable
@texases
I whole heartedly agree that sugar is sugar.the study does indicate that the ratios may have something to do with their findings. These guys (users of HFCS) are SMART. And , if using HFCS can raise the tolerance for sugar, as an agent that increase dependency, not because it has more calories, but, it is so much cheaper due in part to our subsidies that it is found in MORE foods. So for the average consumer, he gets much more sugar because HFCS makes it much cheaper to do so by including it in MORE foods.
Check your groceries and unless you make an effort to avoid it…it’s in so much stuff, it’s difficult for most to avoid. Plus, natural sugars are found more in foods with roughage. This slows the absorption of sugar making it less harmful…lHFCS is seldom found in foods with enough roughage…a double problem. There are millions of people who live in areas without access to natural foods with roughage and natural sugars…they by necessity eat lot’s of HFCS and are many of the obese.
@longprime
It’s a matter increasing the tolerance with HFCS which makes sweeter drinks more tolerable. Over time, you prefer the sweeter drinks, craving those drinks which creates more profit.
Sugar is not sugar. Cane sugar is much, much better than HFCS. The coke from Mexico, where they still use cane sugar, is exactly like the coke I grew up on. The coke from the U.S. is not.
Too much sugar everywhere, I agree. Ketchup is more like a dessert topping these days. My point is that folks seem to think there are ‘good’ sugars, which is not true. Here’s NY Times article that sums it up pretty well:
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/20/in-worries-about-sweeteners-think-of-all-sugars/
In particular, it says:
"But most nutrition scientists say that consumer anxiety about the sweetener is misdirected. Only about half of the added sugar in the American diet comes from corn sources. All added sugars, they say, including those from sugar cane and beets, are cause for concern. Today, sugar calories now account for 16 percent of the calories Americans consume, a 50 percent increase from the 1970s. High sugar consumption has been linked to obesity and other health concerns.
“I think consumers have been misled into thinking that high-fructose corn syrup is particularly harmful,” said Michael Jacobson, executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, an advocacy group. “Chemically it’s essentially the same as sugar. The bottom line is we should be consuming a lot less of both sugar and high-fructose corn syrup.”
High-fructose corn syrup and sucrose, also known as table sugar, are made up of about the same amount of glucose and fructose. The American Dietetic Association says the two sweeteners are “nutritionally equivalent” and “indistinguishable” once absorbed in the bloodstream. The American Medical Association has said it’s “unlikely that HFCS contributes more to obesity or other conditions than sucrose.”
@same
The comment that sugar is sugar is not to mean that cane sugar, sucrose is the same as HFCS which has a ratio of Fructose and glucose…that’s where the confusion is. But sucrose is sucrose which is one type of sugar and glucose is glucose.
Though some say that HFCS is the same as table sugar, sucrose , my contention it that it is not, even if the calories are the same even if the absorption rates are the same. THEY (hfcs) ARE usually NOT FOUND IN THE PRESENCE of much ROUGHAGE…
HFCS is usually found without much roughage, is artificial because in that form as fructose and sucrose is in a particular ratio that the Princeton study finds relavant to weight gain and, it does not occur naturally.
As @texases points out, all sugars are problematic when taken to excess. But, the presence of roughage in raw fruits moderates the absorption of the sugars in fruit. So, the absorption rates and the effects are different in foods containing HFCS then natural foods, even if there sugar content is the same…
The AMA says is " unlikely" whatever. They are not conclusive and do not talk about the foods in which each is found which is what is critical. The AMA bails out when it fails to talk aout the other foods present. And again, the AMA fails to say that HFCS is added to more foods artificially then you could possibly get sugars eating the natural versions of the same foods. We get too much sugars…in HFCS form, it’s that simple.
Yeah, I know, I’ve read the official version that they’re “nutritionally equivalent” and “indistiguishable once absorbed into the bloodstream”…but the taste is different on the tung. If you have access to the Mexican Coke, pick one up and do a taste comparison between it and the HFCS coke currently produced in the U.S.
HFCS is a compromise to keep costs down. Special interest groups can twist their words around the Maypole as far as I’m concerned, but cane sugar is better. Neither is healthy in excess, but cane suger is more enjoyable.
Btw, this is not an unusual reaction. Complementary proteins for example give you more protein in the right combination of foods then just adding the individual amounts in each…