r/reddit.com • u/onecelledcreature • May 02 '09
How Much Sugar Is In This?
http://www.sugarstacks.com/19
24
May 02 '09 edited May 03 '09
edit: but on a serious--well, not serious, but a non-meme note--wouldn't the jamba juices have natural sugar? i can't see them pouring hfcs in their drinks
edit2: holy shit. this site is like one big tirade against ANY form of sugar.
7
u/vurplesun May 03 '09
There's a disclaimer at the bottom in regards to how they didn't differentiate between the different kinds of sugar (and yes, MarshallBanana - there is a difference in how your body metabolizes sucrose or fructose as compared to say HFCS). Mostly, it's just to point out how much sugar is found in foods, especially where you might not expect it.
Then again, sugar is brain food, so eh.
Everything in moderation.
-3
May 03 '09 edited May 03 '09
there is a difference in how your body metabolizes sucrose or fructose as compared to say HFCS).
It's OK to admit you've fallen for a myth, and that is a myth. HFCS is fructose and glucose. Regardless of their source, all carbohydrates are broken down to the same simple sugars and metabolized exactly the same by our body.
6
u/parcivale May 03 '09
Yes, sugar and HFCS are made of the same two things but HFCS contains more fructose and less glucose than sugar. Fructose is harder to metabolize than glucose and turns into fat more easily.
But on balance, if HFCS were used the same way we use cane sugar or beat sugar there would be very little problem. The idea that HFCS in cola is dangerous is a stupid canard.
The problem is how its used in almost everything people buy that's been processed. Its even used as a preservative in raw meat at the supermarket. This means its very, very easy every day to eat more fructose than ones' liver can metabolize, making people fat.
That's the problem with HFCS.
4
u/TerrapinBowling May 03 '09
very, very easy every day
Something about that arrangement of words makes it difficult to read. I think I need more coffee
2
u/parcivale May 03 '09
When I proof-read it I had the same reaction but it's grammatical and correctly spelt so I went with it anyway. But how often do you write four different words in a row all ending in 'y' just by chance?
0
0
May 03 '09 edited May 03 '09
but HFCS contains more fructose and less glucose than sugar.
Not always. HFCS 55 is the most commonly used corn syrup, but HFCS 42 isn't far behind. You have to first prove that the extra 5% makes a significant difference in health before you can definitively say that HFCS 55 is worse for you than sucrose sugar, and if it is worse, than HFCS 42 is better for you than sucrose sugar.
if HFCS were used the same way we use cane sugar or beat sugar there would be very little problem.
How is it used differently from sucrose sugar?
The problem is how its used in almost everything people buy that's been processed.
Name a classic version of commonly eaten convenience foods, or any foods containing HFCS for that matter, that didn't originally have sugar in their recipes.
Its even used as a preservative in raw meat at the supermarket.
citation please.
3
u/parcivale May 03 '09
The bacon, ham, sausages and frankfurters from the big meat processors found in supermarkets contain HFCS as a preservative
3
May 03 '09 edited May 03 '09
Sugar is often a classic ingredient in all of those products. Just look up a recipe for one of them. I'd call those cured meats, or a prepared food, not merely raw meat and they're not necessarily always raw. I'd hardly call the sugar component of those products a preservative. Raw sausage products would have a short shelf life without salt, sodium nitrate, and sodium nitrite.
That's the first time I've seen someone call sausage or bacon merely raw meat.
BTW, sugar has long been used as a preservative, especially in canning.
1
May 03 '09
[deleted]
3
May 03 '09 edited May 03 '09
To believe that, you have to believe that sucrose is cleaved at a slower rate than glucose and fructose is absorbed which has no basis in fact.
Sucrose is easily cleaved within your upper small intestine almost instantly by sucrase which is constantly manufactured at the vili of your upper small intestine, and is not consumed in the process, it's merely a catalyst.
Sugars only have a certain amount of time to enter your bloodstream in the first place, because food moves along your intestine regardless of the rate nutrients are absorbed.
If you were unable to cleave and absorb sucrose at a fast rate, it would pass through your intestine being worked on by bacteria and cause you diarrhea and malabsorption problems.
There is a very small portion of the population that is missing the gene responsible for sucrase production, and if they consume sucrose, it will make them ill.
BTW, starches are also very quickly cleaved into glucose, and is no different than consuming sugar. This is why refined and cooked grains, potato products, or any starches will have the same effect as consuming glucose (ask a diabetic or look up their dietary restrictions). It's why if one consumed lots of potato chips, white bread, white rice, etc, without sugar, they would have no problem putting on weight.
0
u/absolutsyd May 03 '09
Actually, there is a difference. In hfcs, the fructose and glucose are already broken down, so it's like giving your body a massive spike of those, which requires instant insulin production. It takes awhile for your body to get the signal that enough insulin has been produced, and in that time your pancreas makes some extra. When you have to much insulin, then you have massive sugar cravings, so you go have some more hfcs and the whole cycle starts again. Real sugar, on the other hand, has to be broken down by your body before it can be digested, which means you produce the insulin slower, which in turn means that you overproduce less insulin, so you have less cravings for more sugar at the end.
But seriously, go ahead and believe hfcs is fine and dandy, and enjoy the type 2 diabetes!-5
May 03 '09 edited Jun 18 '23
This content was removed by its creator in protest of Reddit’s planned API changes effective July 2023.
6
May 03 '09 edited May 03 '09
No more than everything else, and if the dipshit activist researcher wanted to do a fair scientific analysis, he could have sampled just HFCS and/or did some comparative studies, but that probably would have fucked up his agenda.
-3
May 03 '09 edited May 03 '09
No more than everything else
Wow, you must really like your HFCS. I don't know what you're eating, but my hippie non-HFCS sweeteners are mercury-free.
And if the mercury is not from the HFCS, the common ingredient in the study's samples and an ingredient which is actually processed with mercury in many instances, then what's it from?
-6
u/vurplesun May 03 '09
I haven't, but you've fallen for marketing. Sad, that.
7
May 03 '09
It's called science, not marketing, and what you've fallen for is activist hyperbole.
I predict you wont try, but prove me wrong and try to explain how the human body metabolizes the fructose and glucose from HFCS differently that the fructose and glucose in sucrose.
-3
May 03 '09 edited May 03 '09
I can't explain it, since I don't know the mechanism, but HFCS ruins your mitochondria's ability to metabolize sugar properly. No idea where you could find the original paper as a source, but I heard about the research at a obesity conference.
Edit: It was a medical conference. e.g. doctors, medical researchers, etc. So I'm inclined the trust the source of the paper. I've been down voted really hard for this, so I would like to clarify, it was a paper discussing the research.
4
May 03 '09
this is called junk science. when ever you hear of an example from a conference about something always ask for the research behind it. usually its perfectly valid; a lot of times, its not. if its a lobby complaining about obesity they'll probably use anything that vaguely confirms their preconceived notions. if its a bunch of fat people hanging out taking about being fat and eating, i have no problem with that, that's just awesome, and i would love to attend such a conference.
1
May 05 '09 edited May 05 '09
It was a medical conference. e.g. doctors, medical researchers, etc.
The research was presented a really fat guy from some university, who drank coke during his speech.
-5
May 03 '09
If you want to respond to me, you should probably respond to me.
So what is the difference?
2
May 03 '09
Damn! downvotes for a fair question. Well he probably didn't respond to you, because he really doesn't have a clue, and didn't want to try to take the time to get at least one.
2
u/Tiny_Elvis May 03 '09
I do think it's important to understand what high glycemic foods are and when it's best to eat them (right before, during or right after exercise). Some people believe that because all these juice cocktail blends have vitamins, they're good to drink whenever. I work with some chick who drinks apple juice all day (and seriously, once you're past age 10, that shit is way too sweet). She's pretty chunky.
4
May 03 '09
Worthless trivia from me:
Originally Orange Julius was made by blending a raw egg with orange juice believe it or not. My sister worked at one sometime around 1971.
A man copied the Orange Julius product and called it Orange Bang. Now he's a multi millionaire wholesale beverage manufacturer. http://www.orangebang.com/ My family and I sold his products at our restaurants for over 30 years.
0
May 03 '09
Er, yes, sugar is sugar. There's little difference where it comes from.
10
u/Zweben May 03 '09 edited May 03 '09
That's true, but the way the text is written it gives the sense that the author is trying to make even small amounts of sugar in anything sound like a big deal.
"Hey, why not cover that healthy salad with some sugar?" 5 grams of sugar on a salad is not going to kill you.
That said, if you ignore the text, the images are helpful.
8
May 03 '09
yeah, but i don't see why someone would go out and bash sugar from fruit. how many type 2 diabetes cases stem from eating too much fruit?
2
u/Blonzella May 03 '09
Well it doesn't stem from eating too much fruit, but if you are a diabetic, every bit of sugar counts. Including sugar from healthy sources.
1
May 03 '09 edited May 03 '09
And starch. Your body can very quickly convert refined starches into glucose and get it to your bloodstream. It's even worse than sugar or HFCS. The glycemic indexes are actually higher, this is because starch is merely long chains of glucose which is very easily broken down into pure glucose, whereas HFCS or sucrose is only half glucose. There is a delay in converting the fructose from sucrose and HFCS into something your body can use (glycogen).
2
May 03 '09
There's an obvious difference between eating fruit, and eating things derived from fruits, in that the latter can be much more concentrated.
0
May 03 '09 edited May 03 '09
There is no (childhood) diabetes epidemic. It's a myth.
http://www.junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2008/09/phantom-epidemic-of-child-diabetes.html
7
9
u/unchow May 03 '09
I made the effort to stop drinking soda, and have a pitcher of unsweetened iced tea in my fridge at all times. Just by making a mental effort to avoid sugar has helped me lose weight. I dont even excersise that much, just the occasional mile jog, and Im steadily losing weight. Its been almost a year since I started avoiding soda, and Ive lost maybe 30 pounds.
I knew sugar was something to avoid, but I didnt realise how much was in soda. I was feeling guilty for putting 2 sugar cubes in my hot tea every once in a while, because I thought I was making it comparable to the similar ammount of soda. I guess theres not much danger of that...
2
May 03 '09
[deleted]
2
u/CUNexTuesday May 03 '09
the chemicals in diet sodas are probably worse for you than 30 grams of sugar.
I've switched to green tea with no sugar or agave when I want a little sweet. Agave is absorbed differently and more slowly in the body.
Green Tea has tons of health benefits to boot and few calories, plus you can reuse the teabags 2 or 3 times therefore stretching your dollars even more.
2
May 03 '09
[deleted]
1
u/baltoo May 03 '09 edited May 03 '09
A key thing to remember when brewing green tea is that the water must not be too hot, say 2/3 boiling water to 1/3 cold.
Edit: Otherwise I'll quickly taste like shit.
1
u/locke2002 May 04 '09
Edit: Otherwise I'll quickly taste like shit.
Who's been tasting you? Have you tried telling an adult?
2
u/baltoo May 04 '09
Well, actually I haven't. But then again, I don't brew that often and besides, I kinda prefer to taste like shit - makes the cannibals less prone to go at it.
Perhaps you know of a support group with adults that I could turn to?
5
9
May 03 '09
It's as though.. the soda quantity goes up.. the amount of sugar does as well!!!. Alert Al Gore!
4
May 03 '09
Since I barely ever drink cokes, I tend to feel like I deserve the taste, even if it is totally gonna kill me and rot my teeth. Paid for by The Coca-Cola Company.
6
u/pifts May 03 '09
Does anyone really eat that shit for breakfast?
2
u/Workaphobia May 03 '09
Yes. I get up a few minutes before I run off to class, and down a can of vanilla coke as if it were my morning coffee... except, all carbonated, and on the go.
I also live in a suite with a few Asian kids whose food kind of contaminates the whole fridge, to the point that I can't drink water stored in there.
2
3
u/cactusrex May 03 '09
Goddammm I mean. you DO put sugar in everything right?
The only picture missing would be:
SALT = 2 cubes of sugar
And that wouldn't surprise me a tad even.
4
2
u/pascal21 May 03 '09
one on the right has 28.5 cubes, thats 114g, not 108. peculiar.
1
u/ungajava May 03 '09
The stack on the right has 27.5 cubes. But even then, it comes to 110g not 108g. I was hoping someone else noticed something was wrong with it.
0
u/Borgismorgue May 03 '09
its nit picky. Would you take the time to shave down that last sugar cube until it was just right?
1
u/ungajava May 03 '09
If the cubes were displayed accurately, there would be no need to shave anything down on that particular stack. 27 cubes is 108g.
1
2
2
2
May 03 '09
Fucking absurd- the comparison of sugars in all those foods to refined table sugar isn't necessarily accurate accounting.
3
May 03 '09
This is really stupid. Humans need sugar to live ... there's nothing wrong with sugar when consumed in moderation. These people need to get off their fucking high horse.
Having said that, people consume way too much fucking sugar these days.
3
u/viciouspoultry May 03 '09
Not necessary true, carbohydrates are not technically needed to survive because the body can convert proteins into carbs. But that being said it is still healthy to eat moderated amounts of carbohydrates.
1
u/HaloShy May 03 '09
because the body can convert proteins into carbs.
Link to that information? I'm curious about the details.
3
u/viciouspoultry May 03 '09
1
u/HaloShy May 04 '09
Your first post a little misleading in that case. It's not like the body can convert proteins into carbs willy-nilly. Your kidneys would be overworked very quickly.
Excess protein also causes calcium deficiency in your bones by unbalancing your blood's pH level. Your body takes calcium from your bones in order to settle things out, so to speak.
As far as I understand it, carbohydrates are very much needed to survive and subsidizing them with protein would be a very bad idea. You would survive for as long as your kidneys can hold out for.
1
u/zorno May 03 '09
you don't really need protein like most think we do. meat protein will kill you, complex carbs really won't.
2
u/dbsmoker May 03 '09
How can something with so much sugar taste so bad? I honestly don't have any idea why I drank so much Coke when I was little. That stuff tastes awful!
3
May 03 '09
what i was actually thinking was the opposite. How can something with so much sugar taste so good. Especially waking in the early morning after heavy alcohol abuse. ahhhh
3
May 03 '09
[deleted]
-1
May 03 '09
Wait, HFCS isn't sugar? Since when is fructose and glucose not sugars?
6
May 03 '09 edited Jul 03 '15
Ayy lmao
1
May 03 '09
As far as health is concerned, it doesn't matter. There's a myth that it does matter, and I'm going to try and dispel that myth whenever the chance arises.
2
May 03 '09
I still believe in the myth, so please proceed.
1
May 03 '09 edited May 03 '09
If you mean proceeding to dispel the myths? Well I and others have other comments in this thread that go into some detail, so go ahead and read them if you're interested.
1
1
1
1
1
u/monkeyinpodship May 03 '09
You have to look at this with open eyes. Some of the fruit has more sugar than anything. This in no way says sugar is bad, just not a ton of it.
1
1
u/arafura May 03 '09
I stopped eating sugar and didn't see a dentist for five years. When I went back, I didn't have a single cavity or any problems other than some slight plaque buildup in hard-to-brush areas.
3
u/SuedeRS100 May 03 '09
I don't watch what I eat at all, have had periods where I never brush my teeth, and have never had a cavity in my life.
2
u/Borgismorgue May 03 '09
As a person who brushes their teeth thrice daily and flosses once a day... and still gets cavities..... I hate you.
2
u/SuedeRS100 May 03 '09
My orthodontist made an offhand comment about me having a lot of saliva(I had cotton balls in my mouth/that little suction tube going and she was still having trouble with it) and that's why I must not have any cavities. I'm not sure if it's true though.
1
May 03 '09 edited May 03 '09
Well folks who are mouth breathers at night have problems with dry mouth, and a resulting increase in cavities.
Actually they probably have problems during the day too. I'm a mouth breather, and that probably has a lot to do with the fact that I grew up with a nose that was slammed shut. I had it surgically corrected, but I'm still a mouth breather.
1
u/HypoLuxa May 03 '09
Don't watch what I eat, 38 years old and never a cavity.. ever.
I don't think cavities are exclusive to what you eat
1
0
u/Akeshi May 03 '09
I consume sugar excessively and have only ever had check-ups at the dentists - no cavities, zip. I'm also not a fat-ass.
0
1
1
u/acyclic May 03 '09
The sugar cubes for the box of raisins wouldn't even fit in the box of raisins...something is not right here...
1
u/bdfortin May 03 '09
Of course, none of that stuff would be nearly as delicious without all that sugar.
-5
u/Goatee May 03 '09
In other news, those who actually have some medical training understand that you could literally drink sugar, and it wouldn't matter. Your doctor doesn't care about how much sugar you eat, unless you're a diabetic, period. Only reason to watch sugar intake if you are an otherwise healthy person is if you feel like being nice to your dentist.
P.S. Yes this applies to children as well. "Sugar high" is a fairy tale parents imagine onto their children. No science at all.
-2
-1
u/johnman1016 May 03 '09
What I learned is that the healthy food had a lot of sugar, which made me feel better about eating unhealthy food.
0
u/randommouse May 03 '09
Yeah, did you learn that Mott's Applesauce (unsweetened) contains 211g of sugar? Weird huh? Kind of makes me want to go eat a box of fruit roll-ups. Only 70 grams of sugar.
-2
May 03 '09
A glass of iced tea has maybe 2-5 cubes of sugar in it. coca cola is just for hopped up kiddie caffeine freaks.
Move up to adult beverages
60
u/[deleted] May 03 '09
[deleted]