Don't sour on idea of ‘corn sugar'

[sandinista! 1,816]

Disagree with what?

they disagree that in some areas, "there are other means of dealing with malaria".

ddt needs to be on the table as an option in those places. it's a matter of life and death. a big one. and the benefits of ddt in those places, at those times far outweigh the risks. when over 90% of malaria deaths in africa are children under the age of 5, possible cancer risks take a backseat. i posted a link with an interview of a public health official who specializes in tropical medicine, and what he has to say about ddt. if you want to actually learn something about this issue, you should probably read it. it's a far more complex subject than you have given it any credit for at all here. that's not cool. or smart.

[james&olya 1,121]

I haven't agreed with you. The "sugar" I introduced there is the kind that you shouldn't ingest if you still want to drive. It's against the law. The point being that the composition of the corbon, hydrogen and oxygen makes all the difference. You see, ethanol and methanol are very similar. One only gets you drunk, the other makes you blind.

Excellent point! If you take the reasoning of the OP and his corn-lobby shills you will consider methanol the same as ethanol, after all, they are both technically 'alcohol'!

[JohnSmith2007 353]

I haven't agreed with you. The "sugar" I introduced there is the kind that you shouldn't ingest if you still want to drive. It's against the law. The point being that the composition of the corbon, hydrogen and oxygen makes all the difference. You see, ethanol and methanol are very similar. One only gets you drunk, the other makes you blind.

Where did methanol and ethanol come into the discussion? So sugar and alcohol are both carbon based? Big deal. You said HFCS isn't sugar. It is. That is a fact. Try less deflecting. If you don't like HFCS then don't use it. That is your right but the demonize it makes no sense. They are both sugar, so closely related to make the difference moot.

Why do the people that don't like HFCS feel the need to make it out as some sort of poison? To much of any sugar is bad for you. That is why I don't use traditional sugar at all. I use Stevia. It has no carbs, no glycemic index and no calories. Since using it in my tea and coffee I have lost 10% of my body weight.

[james&olya 1,121]

No, I really do have strong beliefs about the third world. The political BS that banned DDT is responsible for millions of deaths. The unintended consequences of the knee jerk environmentalists are killing people.

No, I guess someone has to use small words for you to understand. HFCS and cane sugar are almost identical. The body sees the sugar the very same way. Stop reacting to the political BS and read up on it.

A point often made in my area of expertise is 'A little bit of knowledge is dangerous!' I know a great deal more than you might expect! I deal with this daily. You need to stop listening to corporate mouthpieces who use that little bit of knowledge and twist it or spin it into dangerous 'factoids'. No wonder someone wondered if you were getting all this from Fox 'news'! They are masters at this type of BS!

[JohnSmith2007 353]

A point often made in my area of expertise is 'A little bit of knowledge is dangerous!' I know a great deal more than you might expect! I deal with this daily. You need to stop listening to corporate mouthpieces who use that little bit of knowledge and twist it or spin it into dangerous 'factoids'. No wonder someone wondered if you were getting all this from Fox 'news'! They are masters at this type of BS!

You should take your own advice. You are listening to people with an ax to grind against HFCS. All sugar in excess is bad for you. Cane sugar and HFCS are just the same thing derived from different sources. The ratio of fructose to sucrose differs a bit but chemically they are the same.

And there you go with the Fox News bit. Whats up with that? Is it supposed to be some sort of an insult? I get my news from dozens of different places, some left and some right.

You seem to only want to insult and not discuss. Why is that? Do you find your ability to debate so limited?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Where did methanol and ethanol come into the discussion? So sugar and alcohol are both carbon based? Big deal. You said HFCS isn't sugar. It is. That is a fact. Try less deflecting. If you don't like HFCS then don't use it. That is your right but the demonize it makes no sense. They are both sugar, so closely related to make the difference moot.

Why do the people that don't like HFCS feel the need to make it out as some sort of poison? To much of any sugar is bad for you. That is why I don't use traditional sugar at all. I use Stevia. It has no carbs, no glycemic index and no calories. Since using it in my tea and coffee I have lost 10% of my body weight.

HFCS is as closely related to sugar as methanol is to ethanol. I don't remember anyone having suggested that HFCS is a poison. It's just not the same as sugar. If it was, it would never have been called anything but that.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

You should take your own advice. You are listening to people with an ax to grind against HFCS. All sugar in excess is bad for you. Cane sugar and HFCS are just the same thing derived from different sources. The ratio of fructose to sucrose differs a bit but chemically they are the same.

And there you go with the Fox News bit. Whats up with that? Is it supposed to be some sort of an insult? I get my news from dozens of different places, some left and some right.

You seem to only want to insult and not discuss. Why is that? Do you find your ability to debate so limited?

The left doesn't like their religious believes questioned. Really want to see them freak out? Ask them why a million children die every year because someone suggested (erroneously) that the cure might soften bird eggs.

HFCS is as closely related to sugar as methanol is to ethanol. I don't remember anyone having suggested that HFCS is a poison. It's just not the same as sugar. If it was, it would never have been called anything but that.

Is methanol an isomer of ethanol? I think not.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Cane sugar and HFCS are just the same thing derived from different sources. The ratio of fructose to sucrose differs a bit but chemically they are the same.

You mean the ratio of fructose and glucose. And if the ratio differs, then they are chemically not the same.

[Kathryn41 3,205]

Several posts by different individuals have been removed for TOS violations. You can disagree with the post but you are not allowed to insult the poster. Any further such posts will lead to thread bans

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Several posts by different individuals have been removed for TOS violations. You can disagree with the post but you are not allowed to insult the poster. Any further such posts will lead to thread bans

I stand behind my posts. They were not in violation of the TOS. They just struck to close to home for some people. I respectfully disagree with your removing them.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

You mean the ratio of fructose and glucose. And if the ratio differs, then they are chemically not the same.

You are deliberately being difficult. HFCS and cane sugar are the same thing only in different ratios. For example, The gas you buy in the winter has a different blend that what you buy in the summer. The ratios of gas and additives are different but it is still gas. I think I have proved my point. If you want to continue to be obtuse then go right ahead. I am going home for the night.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

You are deliberately being difficult. HFCS and cane sugar are the same thing only in different ratios. For example, The gas you buy in the winter has a different blend that what you buy in the summer. The ratios of gas and additives are different but it is still gas. I think I have proved my point. If you want to continue to be obtuse then go right ahead. I am going home for the night.

Gas? Additives? Talk about being difficult. But let's do this: Why is the mixture different in the winter vs. the summer? If it's all the same and if ratios don't matter and have no effect, then why bother changing the mix?

[rocks 494]

they disagree that in some areas, "there are other means of dealing with malaria".

ddt needs to be on the table as an option in those places. it's a matter of life and death. a big one. and the benefits of ddt in those places, at those times far outweigh the risks. when over 90% of malaria deaths in africa are children under the age of 5, possible cancer risks take a backseat. i posted a link with an interview of a public health official who specializes in tropical medicine, and what he has to say about ddt. if you want to actually learn something about this issue, you should probably read it. it's a far more complex subject than you have given it any credit for at all here. that's not cool. or smart.

Yes. I'm obviously not talking about Africa though. I'm talking about America, that's why I quoted .gov websites. This thread is about HFCS, which is also in America. It went off on a tangent about Africa for no reason. We don't need DDT in this country. Breast cancer is the most common cancer amongst women in USA, it is an important issue. Belittling it with stupid comments about it being "minor" are careless and thoughtless. Also the comment about "a few birds" is ridiculous.

i don't think it necessarily makes you racist, but when it comes to a good handle of the relevant facts regarding ddt and the scourge of malaria, there are some fact gaps, yes.

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_ddt03.htm

http://www.fightingmalaria.org/article.aspx?id=796

What on earth are you saying? You are accusing me of being racist for not wanting DDT in this country? Really? Grow up.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I haven't agreed with you. The "sugar" I introduced there is the kind that you shouldn't ingest if you still want to drive. It's against the law. The point being that the composition of the corbon, hydrogen and oxygen makes all the difference. You see, ethanol and methanol are very similar. One only gets you drunk, the other makes you blind.

Yep. People that make moonshine - if they're not careful, they'll end up with methanol and can die.

To the OP: consume all the sugar (fructose, HFCS, glucose) you want, but if you're over 45 and have a lot of belly fat, you're at very high risk for developing diabetes. In fact, you may already have it, but haven't been diagnosed. I'd recommend you go get a periodic checkup because uncontrolled diabetes can put you in a world of hurt.

Edited August 7, 2012 by Commie Appeaser

[sandinista! 1,816]

Yes. I'm obviously not talking about Africa though. I'm talking about America, that's why I quoted .gov websites. This thread is about HFCS, which is also in America. It went off on a tangent about Africa for no reason. We don't need DDT in this country. Breast cancer is the most common cancer amongst women in USA, it is an important issue. Belittling it with stupid comments about it being "minor" are careless and thoughtless. Also the comment about "a few birds" is ridiculous.

What on earth are you saying? You are accusing me of being racist for not wanting DDT in this country? Really? Grow up.

lol. disingenuous much? the bringing back ddt discussion here was never in reference to america. why would anyone want to bring back ddt for malaria in the united states when malaria was eradicated here in the 1940s? guess how it was eradicated? dd freakin' t. every summer you don't get malaria in mississippi, thank ddt.

and since when does "i don't think it necessarily makes you racist" mean i'm calling you a racist? i said i don't think you are, but that you don't have a good handle on relevant facts to this issue. which is true. you don't.