javasaurus (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
javasaurus) wrote2006-05-26 04:48 pm
javasaurus) wrote2006-05-26 04:48 pm
High fructose corn syrup
Some people absolutely hate high fructose corn syrup (HFCS). Why?
I can understand that some people can actually taste the difference between HFCS and sucrose, but I have trouble understanding why they find the difference to be so strong as to really get upset about it.
Before I continue, here's trivia that some people may not know: Sucrose is 50:50 glucose/fructose. HFCS is 45:55 glucose/fructose. There is very little difference between them!
Also, some people blame HFCS for the increasing gut size in the US. Why? HFCS can actually achieve the same sweetness as sucrose with slightly fewer calories! Fructose is sweeter than glucose, so upping the ratio means you can use less sugar. If you use the same amount of sugar, you get the same calories. HFCS is no worse for you calorie-wise than sucrose.
This doesn't really mean that HFCS has no role in the increasing waist size. HFCS is somewhat cheaper to produce than sucrose, so soda manufacturers can use the savings to keep prices down and/or increase serving size. If people are getting fat, it's from drinking more soda, not because the HFCS soda has more calories.
I can understand that some people can actually taste the difference between HFCS and sucrose, but I have trouble understanding why they find the difference to be so strong as to really get upset about it.
Before I continue, here's trivia that some people may not know: Sucrose is 50:50 glucose/fructose. HFCS is 45:55 glucose/fructose. There is very little difference between them!
Also, some people blame HFCS for the increasing gut size in the US. Why? HFCS can actually achieve the same sweetness as sucrose with slightly fewer calories! Fructose is sweeter than glucose, so upping the ratio means you can use less sugar. If you use the same amount of sugar, you get the same calories. HFCS is no worse for you calorie-wise than sucrose.
This doesn't really mean that HFCS has no role in the increasing waist size. HFCS is somewhat cheaper to produce than sucrose, so soda manufacturers can use the savings to keep prices down and/or increase serving size. If people are getting fat, it's from drinking more soda, not because the HFCS soda has more calories.
no subject
the result is that you can actually not REALIZE you're drinking more sodas because unlike "sugar" based drinks, they're not in any way filling at all.
the other curse is the saturation factor, particularly in sweetened tea. they put so damn much in there that you can't actually taste the tea at all.
and in coke, it DOES taste different. get a bottle of kosher coke next lent (leading up to passover) and a bottle of regular. if you can't taste the difference, fine, forget it.
but i can, and the difference is huge.
(no subject)
no subject
Try a rum and coke with HFCS and with sugar. Sugar wins, hands down. Cane sugar does wonderful things when introduced to alcahol.
I find that HFCS and sugar have different textures. Sugar is a much smoother sweetness than HFCS. I find this noticeable.
no subject
But sugar in drinks tastes *so* much better. Not just the apparent taste of the sweetener, but what it does to the taste of the drink. As Acroyear said up there, the difference between everyday Coke and kosher for Passover Coke is *huge*... identifiable by both appearance (both sitting there and how it "fizzes") and taste/aftertaste (a "cleaner/crisper" taste, less oddish aftertaste, and ... something else I can't bring to mind right now... only got to have it one day this year :-( )
Most of the difference is how whatever it's mixed with clings to your mouth... the corn syrup is just that much more "sticky". And if something you don't like happens to be what sticks to your mouth, it's not quite as pleasant an experience.
(no subject)