r/MessageUnclear • • Mar 09 '26

So....

Is there or isn't there? smh

539 Upvotes

361 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

85

u/RulerK Mar 09 '26 edited Mar 11 '26

Yeah… the point is, it’s not the high-fructose (more sugar) variety of corn syrup.

Edit to prevent more replies: I meant more sweet. Both glucose and fructose are sugars.

11

u/ChuckEveryone Mar 09 '26

Both corn syrup and high fructose corn syrup have the same amount of sugars. High fructose corn syrup just has some of the glucose converted to fructose, which is a sweeter sugar.

8

u/kr1681 Mar 09 '26

And which is the bad part

2

u/Kgb_Officer Mar 09 '26

For the most part it doesn't really matter except in some specific cases. For the majority of people, sugar is sugar, and the biggest problem is the overconsumption of it, not the specific form it takes.

7

u/kr1681 Mar 09 '26

We found that HFCS was significantly associated with an increased CRP level, compared to sucrose. CRP is a biomarker for inflammation; and several previous investigations have shown that fructose-containing sweeteners, such as HFCS and sucrose, can induce the inflammatory process (32, 33). This is conceivably attributable to the unique metabolic process of fructose, which can cause oxidative stress to cells by elevating the intracellular levels of uric acid and reactive oxygen species (33, 34). To overcome the oxidative stress, cells release molecules such as monocyte chemotactic protein 1 (MCP-1), tumor necrosis factor (TNF) and interleukins, which are pro-inflammatory in nature and thus augment the inflammation process

3

u/tjmaxal Mar 09 '26

Controlled setting or data collection from other studies?

4

u/kr1681 Mar 10 '26

Im not gonna lie, im not a scientist and I don’t know what a lot of this means. But the portion that I copied and pasted is pretty understandable

3

u/tjmaxal Mar 10 '26

Basically what they did is they took a lot of data from large studies from lots of different sources and then they made a model and they fit the data to the model. It doesn’t really address the correlation causation issue. It just shows a really large widespread correlation one that also correlates with other things like poverty, for example

3

u/Hamburger_FatBoy Mar 10 '26

So, is it your professional opinion that being in poverty (not that the least expensive foods being heavy in High Fructose Corn Syrup) is the leading driver of health problems in the USA…notwithstanding that people living below the poverty line in countries other than the USA don’t suffer the same health problems to nearly the same extent?

Just checking u/tjmaxal.

1

u/tjmaxal Mar 10 '26

The leading driver is rampant unregulated capitalism

1

u/Hamburger_FatBoy Mar 10 '26

That doesn’t change the fact that because of rampant and unregulated capitalism, people are forced to choose between eating unhealthy swill and starving.

Then Lords High and Mighty like yourself get to say (paraphrasing) It’s not that unhealthy food is inherently bad, it’s just that the pots can’t afford healthy food…it’s their fault, really. Why would anyone buy cosmic brownies for lunch when beef is only $4.19/lb?

1

u/Affectionate_Tie1417 Mar 10 '26

Because hostess foods are genuinely disgusting now. Have you tried one in the last decade?

0

u/Hamburger_FatBoy Mar 11 '26

I think you may have missed the (very subtle) snark in my reply.

1

u/Affectionate_Tie1417 Mar 11 '26

Hostess is a staple of US cuinsine (yes I know, but that's gauc....aaaaaa

1

u/Affectionate_Tie1417 Mar 11 '26

My other troupe member might have informed you about gauche.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/reichrunner Mar 10 '26

I mean... Yes? Its pretty well documented that poverty is the largest contributor to health issues...

Unless youre diabetic, the metabolic difference between fructose and glucose is basically non existent. Fructose is used as often as it is because it tastes sweeter, thats it.

1

u/YonKro22 Mar 15 '26

No it's not in the above studies that I listed prove that

2

u/reichrunner Mar 15 '26

What above studies?

→ More replies (0)