Re: Ketchup minus HFCS

[Guest guest]

Humans seem to work very hard to come up with villains to blame for gaining weight besides the obvious (energy balance). There is actually an advertising campaign trying to promote HFCS because of it's bad reputation with consumer activists and usage is down 8-9%.. To my mind arguing glucose is better for us than fructose, is kind of like arguing a round hole would be less damaging in the hull of the Titanic than a square hole.. Either way the boat is going down. Yes, there is a small difference in the margin between the different sugars but processed food is processed food. Isn't ketchup just tomato sauce with sugar and salt added? I guess if you are going to use processed ketchup anyhow, less bad even if it's a minuscule difference is worth pursuing.Please do read the label and give us a report. Did the calories per serving change?JROn May 15, 2010, at 9:52 AM, Francesca Skelton wrote:

Today I see a coupon in the paper for Hunt’s ketchup which advertises 0% High Fructose Corn Syrup. My household does use a bit of ketchup now and then so I’m going to switch to Hunt’s assuming they didn’t add extra sugar or other garbage to make up for the missing HFCS.

If we support the healthier alternatives, perhaps more companies will improve their products instead of putting whatever garbage they now throw into them.

[Guest guest]

Ketchup ingredients include the aforementioned spices, vinegar, and tomato paste, not sauce, making it a thicker product than tomato sauce. If not for my husband, I would use straight tomato paste as an acceptable substitute and I did for a time. However I don’t use much ketchup, and not often enough to go to the trouble of making my own.

Tomato sauce is a different story. I stopped buying processed sauce ages ago. I buy canned tomatoes in puree (no salt added – in fact nothing added) at Trader Joe’s, and cook adding my own ingredients. I make it in batches and freeze some for later meals. IMHO, the effort is worth the time and trouble for sauce, but not for ketchup.

On 5/15/10 11:38 AM, " john roberts " <robertsjohnh@...> wrote:

Humans seem to work very hard to come up with villains to blame for gaining weight besides the obvious (energy balance). There is actually an advertising campaign trying to promote HFCS because of it's bad reputation with consumer activists and usage is down 8-9%..

To my mind arguing glucose is better for us than fructose, is kind of like arguing a round hole would be less damaging in the hull of the Titanic than a square hole.. Either way the boat is going down.

Yes, there is a small difference in the margin between the different sugars but processed food is processed food. Isn't ketchup just tomato sauce with sugar and salt added? I guess if you are going to use processed ketchup anyhow, less bad even if it's a minuscule difference is worth pursuing.

Please do read the label and give us a report. Did the calories per serving change?

JR

On May 15, 2010, at 9:52 AM, Francesca Skelton wrote:

Today I see a coupon in the paper for Hunt’s ketchup which advertises 0% High Fructose Corn Syrup. My household does use a bit of ketchup now and then so I’m going to switch to Hunt’s assuming they didn’t add extra sugar or other garbage to make up for the missing HFCS.

If we support the healthier alternatives, perhaps more companies will improve their products instead of putting whatever garbage they now throw into them.

[Guest guest]

Let's put this in perspective.Table sugar is 50/50 glucose/fructose. HFCS is 45/55 glucose/fructoseSo, lets take 2 TB, which is about 100 grams (if you allow me to round off for sake of ease). So, Sucrose would be 50 grams of glucose and 50 grams of fructoseAnd, HFCS would be 45 grams of glucose and 55 grams of fructose. Only 5 more grams from 2 TB that would be metabolized slightly differently. that is only 5% of the total ( 5 grams out of 100). Now, remember, 100 grams of sucrose is 400 calories, which is excessive to begin with and still we are only dealing with a 5 gram difference.It is far-fetched to think that 5 grams of fructose is making the difference in the obesity epidemic, especially when obesity continues to rise and total sugar consumption is down and fructose consumption is down even more i the last 15 years, while obesity continues to climb.If the average American is consuming 22 tsp/day (as some research suggests) that is ~88 grams per dayIf it was 100% sucrose that is 44 grams of fructose.If we switched to 100% HFCS that is 48 grams of fructose.Again, only 4 grams difference and the reality is, we have not switched 100%.4 grams is 16 calories, which if was the issue, would account for at most, an increase in weight of about 1.5 lbs per person. A tiny percent of the actual average increase in the average American's weightSo, to think that less than 4 grams of fructose per person has caused the obesity epidemic or been a major contributor is just completely misguided and a misrepresentation of the science and the data.We have bigger issues to be focusing on:)Jeff

[Guest guest]

But isn’t the problem that HFCS is being put into everything? Even things that (if you didn’t read the label) one would never suspect? It’s abundant and cheap and probably addictive since it’s sweet. The government subsidizes corn, so in it goes. Because it’s also being fed to animals who were never meant to eat a corn diet, this leads to giving cattle and poultry massive amounts of antibiotics which of course leads to havoc among us humans.

I’m sure someone will correct me if I’m wrong :-)

On 5/15/10 1:14 PM, " Novick " <jnovickrd@...> wrote:

Let's put this in perspective.

Table sugar is 50/50 glucose/fructose. HFCS is 45/55 glucose/fructose

So, lets take 2 TB, which is about 100 grams (if you allow me to round off for sake of ease).

So, Sucrose would be 50 grams of glucose and 50 grams of fructose

And, HFCS would be 45 grams of glucose and 55 grams of fructose. Only 5 more grams from 2 TB that would be metabolized slightly differently. that is only 5% of the total ( 5 grams out of 100).

Now, remember, 100 grams of sucrose is 400 calories, which is excessive to begin with and still we are only dealing with a 5 g!

ram difference.

It is far-fetched to think that 5 grams of fructose is making the difference in the obesity epidemic, especially when obesity continues to rise and total sugar consumption is down and fructose consumption is down even more i the last 15 years, while obesity continues to climb.

If the average American is consuming 22 tsp/day (as some research suggests) that is ~88 grams per day

If it was 100% sucrose that is 44 grams of fructose.

If we switched to 100% HFCS that is 48 grams of fructose.

Again, only 4 grams difference and the reality is, we have not switched 100%.

4 grams is 16 calories, which if was the issue, would account for at most, an increase in weight of about 1.5 lbs per person. A tiny percent of the actual average increase in the average American's weight

So, to think that less than 4 grams of fructose per person has caused the obesity epidemic or been a major contributor is just c!

ompletely misguided and a misrepresentation of the science and the data.

We have bigger issues to be focusing on

Jeff

[Guest guest]

But I used real current numbers which reflect/include that...the 22 tsp/day I quoted is average intake which would include the total of HFCSMost of the "dramatic" increase in HFCS was because it served as a replacement for the concurrent decrease in sucrose. It replaced sucrose. The increase in total energy since 1970 from all sugars (14%) does not correlate to the increase in obesity. In addition, the intake from total sugars is down 8%, since its peak in 1999, yet obesity rates still rises. More importantly, the consumption of HFCS is actually down around 9% in the last 10 years from when it also peaked in 1999 but obesity rates continued to rise dramatically during this same time. JeffOn May 15, 2010, at 2:22 PM, Francesca Skelton wrote:

But isn’t the problem that HFCS is being put into everything? Even things that (if you didn’t read the label) one would never suspect? It’s abundant and cheap and probably addictive since it’s sweet. The government subsidizes corn, so in it goes. Because it’s also being fed to animals who were never meant to eat a corn diet, this leads to giving cattle and poultry massive amounts of antibiotics which of course leads to havoc among us humans.

I’m sure someone will correct me if I’m wrong :-)

On 5/15/10 1:14 PM, " Novick" <jnovickrd > wrote:

Let's put this in perspective.

Table sugar is 50/50 glucose/fructose. HFCS is 45/55 glucose/fructose

So, lets take 2 TB, which is about 100 grams (if you allow me to round off for sake of ease).

So, Sucrose would be 50 grams of glucose and 50 grams of fructose

And, HFCS would be 45 grams of glucose and 55 grams of fructose. Only 5 more grams from 2 TB that would be metabolized slightly differently. that is only 5% of the total ( 5 grams out of 100).

Now, remember, 100 grams of sucrose is 400 calories, which is excessive to begin with and still we are only dealing with a 5 g!

ram difference.

It is far-fetched to think that 5 grams of fructose is making the difference in the obesity epidemic, especially when obesity continues to rise and total sugar consumption is down and fructose consumption is down even more i the last 15 years, while obesity continues to climb.

If the average American is consuming 22 tsp/day (as some research suggests) that is ~88 grams per day

If it was 100% sucrose that is 44 grams of fructose.

If we switched to 100% HFCS that is 48 grams of fructose.

Again, only 4 grams difference and the reality is, we have not switched 100%.

4 grams is 16 calories, which if was the issue, would account for at most, an increase in weight of about 1.5 lbs per person. A tiny percent of the actual average increase in the average American's weight

So, to think that less than 4 grams of fructose per person has caused the obesity epidemic or been a major contributor is just c!

ompletely misguided and a misrepresentation of the science and the data.

We have bigger issues to be focusing on

Jeff

[Guest guest]

http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/FoodConsumption/app/reports/displayCommodities.aspx\

?reportName=Sweeteners%20by%20individual%20caloric%20sweetener & id=18#startForm

This should bring up a chart that shows sugar consumption over the last 30 years

including HFCS

Jeff

[Guest guest]

Adding sugar and salt into processed foods is not a recent development while HFCS is attractive as a way to reduce sweetening cost compared to regular sugar. The government has their thumb on the sweetener cost scale two (three?) ways.. high sugar import tariffs and corn farm support subsidies, while the recent adventures in mandating ethanol use have put one thumb on the other side of the scale, making corn less of a bargain, as food/feed corn gets diverted to make fuel. Only a few years ago people were selling home heating stoves that burned corn because it was cheaper than fire wood.. I have seen the store price for canned corn at Walmart.. rise from $0.33 to $0.68 per can a 100% cost increase in the matter of a year or two. All in a period of relatively low inflation. HFCS is just a cheaper sweetener (here) due to local economic distortions. All the arm waving is demonizing it in the marketplace which will surely make the sugar growers happy, as food marketing is all about perception of healthy not the reality, so they will find a less offensive sweetener to use. Ironically ethanol is made from sugar cane in Brazil because it's cheaper. JROn May 15, 2010, at 1:22 PM, Francesca Skelton wrote:

But isn’t the problem that HFCS is being put into everything? Even things that (if you didn’t read the label) one would never suspect? It’s abundant and cheap and probably addictive since it’s sweet. The government subsidizes corn, so in it goes. Because it’s also being fed to animals who were never meant to eat a corn diet, this leads to giving cattle and poultry massive amounts of antibiotics which of course leads to havoc among us humans.

I’m sure someone will correct me if I’m wrong :-)

On 5/15/10 1:14 PM, " Novick" <jnovickrd > wrote:

Let's put this in perspective.

Table sugar is 50/50 glucose/fructose. HFCS is 45/55 glucose/fructose

So, lets take 2 TB, which is about 100 grams (if you allow me to round off for sake of ease).

So, Sucrose would be 50 grams of glucose and 50 grams of fructose

And, HFCS would be 45 grams of glucose and 55 grams of fructose. Only 5 more grams from 2 TB that would be metabolized slightly differently. that is only 5% of the total ( 5 grams out of 100).

Now, remember, 100 grams of sucrose is 400 calories, which is excessive to begin with and still we are only dealing with a 5 g!

ram difference.

It is far-fetched to think that 5 grams of fructose is making the difference in the obesity epidemic, especially when obesity continues to rise and total sugar consumption is down and fructose consumption is down even more i the last 15 years, while obesity continues to climb.

If the average American is consuming 22 tsp/day (as some research suggests) that is ~88 grams per day

If it was 100% sucrose that is 44 grams of fructose.

If we switched to 100% HFCS that is 48 grams of fructose.

Again, only 4 grams difference and the reality is, we have not switched 100%.

4 grams is 16 calories, which if was the issue, would account for at most, an increase in weight of about 1.5 lbs per person. A tiny percent of the actual average increase in the average American's weight

So, to think that less than 4 grams of fructose per person has caused the obesity epidemic or been a major contributor is just c!

ompletely misguided and a misrepresentation of the science and the data.

We have bigger issues to be focusing on

Jeff