Misplaced Pages

Talk:High-fructose corn syrup

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 85.211.108.65 (talk) at 04:05, 27 May 2015. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 04:05, 27 May 2015 by 85.211.108.65 (talk)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Ideal sources for Misplaced Pages's health content are defined in the guideline Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about High-fructose corn syrup.
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the High-fructose corn syrup article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 30 days 
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconChemistry Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconFood and drink Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Food and Drink task list:
To edit this page, select here

 Here are some tasks you can do for WikiProject Food and drink:
Note: These lists are transcluded from the project's tasks pages.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconMedicine Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
The contents of the High fructose corn syrup and health page were merged into High-fructose corn syrup on May 25, 2015. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

α-dicarbonyls and other reactive compounds

I see there are a few studies showing this. However you should find a review that summarizes the studies and use it instead. If you click on "cited by" in google scholar, you can see if there are any reviews citing it. Or search using the word "review" along with HFCS and dicarbonyls.

Also, you'll need to remove the synthesis. Basically any study that doesn't specifically mention HFCS should be removed. --sciencewatcher (talk) 15:54, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I just had a look for reviews myself, and it appears that HFCS has similar levels of dicarbonyls to bread and other foods, so it seems to be POV pushing to add those primary studies to the article. --sciencewatcher (talk) 15:43, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
major whoops; corrected misdirected links, incl link to dicarbonyl review.

as for fructose, many of the studies conducted to study hfcs, and cited throughout the article, are about the fructose. It is pretty much the main reason for investigating hcfs. The food scientists study fructose intensively precisely because hfcs contains so much of it. They certainly consider their studies relevant. As for other foods with dicarbonyls I highly doubt bread is a whole ≥0.1%; absorption is slower from solid foods than from liquids, putting less stress on antioxidant defences (and the absence of fructose also decreases methylglyoxal stress); lastly, adding relevant info is not pov, even if it's relevant to something else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.211.108.179 (talk) 12:47, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

HFCS has similar fructose to sucrose (55% vs 50%), so it's misleading to imply that it is any worse than other sugars without evidence. All the evidence suggests it's just as bad as other sugars, but not any significantly worse.
As for dicarbonyls, I would suggest you actually read the reviews which state that bread has higher levels than HFCS. I haven't given a link, because you really should have based your edits on these reviews in the first place, and it would be a good learning experience for you to search for them. It took me all of 30 seconds to find one on google scholar. --sciencewatcher (talk) 15:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I see you are still re-adding your content which violated wikipedia policies (synthesis and primary studies). Using primary studies isn't completely verboten, but when the reviews disagree with your primary studies that's a definite no-no (the reviews say that other foods like bread have higher dicarbonyl levels than HFCS, which you haven't mentioned -- that's WP:NPOV). Also, you can't use studies on "fructose" to say that HFCS is bad...again that is WP:NPOV. Please discuss here rather than reverting again. If you're confused about any policies I'm happy to advise. --sciencewatcher (talk) 13:54, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Sucrose doesn't 'have' fructose, it releases fructose... an extra step that lowers peak concentration and peak oxidative stress on enterocytes and hepatocytes, meaning antioxidant defences cope better.
...
As for the sheer patronizing presumption of refusing to provide evidence for your view, then telling me about what a 'good learning experience' it would be to look for your evidence myself, and starting edit summaries with 'No,' as if you get to decide what goes in the article and what doesn't... and ending by saying you're 'happy to advise' me... I am staggered
85.211.103.87 (talk) 18:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Try googling "hfcs dicarbonyl" and click on the first result (White) and take a look at table 1. PS, I don't have any "view" on HFCS (or even care one iota about it, in fact). Please assume good faith and avoid personal attacks. I'm not the only one reverting your edits when you break wikipedia policies. --sciencewatcher (talk) 18:57, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

That thing by White? I've seen it in search results, but wouldn't touch it. He publishes heaps of pro-fructose/pro-HFCS apology.
And he is flaky. The title first of all presupposes that the opposing view is 'misconceptions', and those who hold this opposing view are just wrong. Then it builds up a ridiculous image of the opposing view, just to draw the reader in. Nobody thinks HFCS is 'uniquely'(=solely) responsible for dicarbonyls, or AGEs or obesity. But he builds up this ridiculous strawman just to knock it down easily. Once one reads the article, it turns out 'uniquely' only means 'more than average'. Ha! Fool on us. He goes so far as to say HFCS 'should be considered a safe and innocuous sweetener'. Nobody even considers sucrose 'innocuous'. He claims the paper is a review, but NCBI doesn't acknowledge it as such.

All that is peanuts, however, next to his proven links to the HFCS industry, and industry advocacy. President and founder of WHITE Technical Research, a consulting firm for the food and beverage industry since 1994 (21 years and counting), worked in the industry for 13 years, affiliated with:

the Institute of Food Technologists (an industry group who have the gall to claim: 'HFCS has come under fire by special interests', 'an innocuous ingredient. A mythology of misconception surrounds HFCS that has lately been embraced by researchers and health professionals' (emphasis mine))

the Calorie Control Council (who describe themselves as: "established in 1966, is an international association representing the low- and reduced-calorie food and beverage industry" (emphasis mine) and promote fructose and HFCS on their site)

and (surprise surprise) the Corn Refiners Assocation.

With such a conflict of interest, anything he says/publishes on HFCS must be taken with a biiiiiiiiiiiiig pinch of salt.

(in any case, the data in the paper, even when taken at face value, doesn't support the idea of total DCs being greater in those other foodstuffs you mentioned. They have more methylglyoxal, but HFCS has far more 3-DG, and thus considerably more DCs overall. I used a different and more comprehensive review instead) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.211.103.87 (talk) 02:43, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

PS: I didn't mean to attack you personally, though what you said really had come across as patronising to me.
85.211.103.87 (talk) 02:47, 23 May 2015 (UTC)


I think you might have confused ug with mg. The primary studies you referenced both seem to show 1mg, not 1g, so therefore it is much lower than for the other foods (unless I've misinterpreted it). Also, you can't really use these, as they are primary studies. And the review you reference doesn't mention HFCS, so you're engaging in WP:SYNTH. Although the White paper might not be the best reference, it seems to be the only one we have, and it definitely trumps your existing primary sources and WP:SYNTH. We already use a number of White references in the article. I'm pretty sure it's an acceptable source, but we can get input from more editors and/or the reliable sources noticeboard if you disagree. --sciencewatcher (talk) 18:19, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
I wasn't being patronising, I was trying to help you understand how wikipedia works -- you simply can't use primary sources for stuff like this. I'm happy to help you out in understanding wikipedia policies and finding good references, but you have to make an effort as well. --sciencewatcher (talk) 18:19, 23 May 2015 (UTC)


A 'secondary' source is supposed to provide a second layer of scrutiny, to decrease bias... which part of 'White has financial conflict of interest, multiple links to industry interest groups including Corn Refiners' Association' didn't I spell out? He'll 'review' his primary sources indeed...
and the scientific databases where people find papers don't usually present the author's Interests in an easily visible way; there may be an inconspicuous tab reading 'Interests', or there may not be an obvious link at all. Most people don't think to look for this information. They didn't know he was effectively a paid-up corn syrup shill. (excluding the possibility that those who added the links were shills... there is precedent of shills editing the article)


If you don't want to sound patronising, don't say things like 'I'm happy to help you out in understanding , but you have to make an effort as well'

... as if you're superior or something

As for the numbers, look again. the values are 293 ug/ml and 1130 ug/ml. So 293 ug/ml becomes 0.293 mg/ml = 0.293 g/l. The same will go for the other number.

The source I used for 3-DG in the other foodstuffs mentions everything I needed it to. 85.211.103.87 (talk) 04:53, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

You're correct, it is 0.293g/L. However the review you reference actually says "concentrations up to 410 mg/L in fruit juices" (not "negligible to 42 mg/l" as you added to the article). Anyway, all of that is irrelevant. You can't do WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, you can't review articles yourself and pick apart their results, and having declared funding isn't a reason to exclude White (we include refs like that all the time on wikipedia). We (myself and the editors here) are well aware of White's funding from the HFCS industry. That doesn't necessarily mean his results can't be used here. --sciencewatcher (talk) 14:54, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Ah, you are right; I accidentally mis-cited the upper end of the range, the multitude of numbers became confused momentarily.
I don't see why you're talking about me 'reviewing' or 'picking apart' articles as I only cited them; also I don't think you can know that the other editors were aware White is bankrolled by the industry, and has decades-long links with industry interest groups, incl. Corn Refiners Association. This is far more than an issue of a one-off declared funding.
Running a consultancy for these HFCS industry groups, he has a continuous financial interest in presenting HFCS from a certain angle, and not impartially. When the review self-declaredly (right from the title) tries to whitewash HFCS and make it appear 'innocuous', the comparisons he draws between HFCS and other foods really should be treated with suspicion.
I understand what you're saying about drawing data on the same thing from a secondary source preferentially to a primary one. However, the review you cited doesn't have the data needed to draw that conclusion, that (total) dicarbonyls in those other foods you mentioned in the article are higher than in HFCS(]. The comparison based on methylglyoxal would tell one that those foods have more of it than HFCS does. But the data on those other foods' 3-DG content is missing. HFCS has by far more 3-DG than it does MG, so a comparison between total dicarbonyls in HFCS and in other foods based on MG data wouldn't be meaningful.
85.211.103.87 (talk) 21:44, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

You're doing your original research, which is verboten here. Your opinion on White doesn't matter (and neither does mine). We can have an opinion on the quality of White's paper, but not in the way you are doing. You can't accuse authors of being "biased" or similar.
Regarding the review I used, all I did was summarise the conclusions given in the review itself. That is about all we are allowed to do on wikipedia, whether you like it or not. (We can also delve into the details of the review itself, with certain restrictions -- see WP:RS and WP:MEDRS) --sciencewatcher (talk) 22:05, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

JS White and the HFCS Industry

The JS White () issue is a serious one and needs more attention than it is getting here. A blatant conflict of interest is not something to pooh-pooh with a wave of a hand. Something needs to be done about how this is presented. Maybe a link to an internal JS White Misplaced Pages page at the very least or wording that makes it clear to the reader that he is receiving funding from the industry that his work defends—something that is frequently required elsewhere. Whatever the case, he is obviously not a neutral source and it is inappropriate to present him next to sources without commercial interests. Exactly what is going on with this article? :bloodofox: (talk) 20:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

worked this over

I worked this over today. there was a lot of content about health based on primary sources that violated MEDRS. A bunch of content had grown up in this article about health, that overlapped with content in the sub-article on "HFCS and health". This happens a lot. I first took all that content out of this article and put it into the other one, then blended them, and then realized that the article wasn't very long, so I moved it all back here and redirected that article to here. the MEDRS sources are pretty clear that as far as we know, HFCS per se doesn't cause metabolic disease - we just eat too much (and too much sweet stuff generally) and don't exercise enough. all the content about dicarbonyls was PRIMARY and UNDUE. I found a 2013 review that mentioned that work and built some content based on it. The stuff about mercury... 2 papers on that in 2009 and a lot of fuss in the media but no (!) reviews on the topic, nothing at CDC about it, nothing at FDA about it. That means it was either a lot of fuss over nothing, or there is a Great Conspiracy To Kill Us All. This is wikipedia, so we go with the former, not the latter. I found an explanation for the lack of concern in a quote from the FDA in a WebMD article, which is as close as I could come to a MEDRS source on this.

The content about the history of HFCS was WP:OR and wrong - somebody had tried to cobble together PRIMARY sources to write their own history. Same thing on the production process. I found secondary sources for both things, and built the content around them, keeping the primary sources as adjuncts to the secondary sources where they were helpful.

when i was done, i rewrote the lead. Jytdog (talk) 02:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

note: i am dropping a note at WT:MED about this rewrite so other editors from project med can review this. Jytdog (talk) 02:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Mercury Removed from Lead, Reliance on WebMD

So, today I rewrote the section on the controversy regarding mercury contamination and mentioned the public controversy in the lead. However, this rewrite, which relied on a secondary sourced (The Washington Post) was removed for a brief mention that entirely relies on Web MD. You can see this edit here: . What gives? Meanwhile I've tagged the article for NPOV issues. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:17, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Maybe the confusion stems from me directly linking to the primary sources mentioned in the article as well. This was for the convenience of the reader, and I thought I made it clear that they were linked for convenience, but maybe not. So, to be clear, they were in fact not used in the mercury contamination write up—it simply summarizes the secondary source, The Washington Post, warts and all. I've removed the links to avoid additional confusion. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Please read WP:MEDRS. WaPo is not useful. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
WaPo is not being used to provide medical advice here. It's reporting on what is being said between these parties and the fact that a controversy existed. There's history here, which is being reported on. That's far more useful han WebMD—a site of notorious crackpottery. We don't need a medical source to report on the fact that a controversy existed in the public and why. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
the content is about health. that is why you care about it, right? Jytdog (talk) 21:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
There's more to these articles than simply "health". There's a web of issues surrounding ethics, sociology, and other interests, usually less about health and more about money. This is one such situation. Mercury contamination has a long history that WP:RS certainly applies to. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
The context to anything about mercury (i.e. weight) is always going to come back to health in this case. MEDRS is pretty much always going to come into play no matter what perspective someone is approaching this one from. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:17, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Hm. Embedded editor clique, got it. Moving on. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:24, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I think that deep back-and-forth quotes between one study and industry would go into too much detail, and the MEDRS sources currently used are sufficient to get the full story. The information about methylmercury is particularly helpful to readers. Mamyles (talk) 21:38, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Bloodofox please explain your deletion of sourced content here. If you don't like WebMED, please provide a better health-based source. I looked for a long time and I could not find a better one. I would be very open to a better one. WaPo is popular media and is not OK. Please work toward strongly sourced content. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:54, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Funny, the content I added was entirely sourced as well. And the above explains it pretty well. In this case, WaPo is entirely appropriate as reporting on this falls well outside of the guidelines of MEDRS, in my opinion. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:22, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
You didn't answer me directly above - please explain why the concern about mercury is not at its base about health. Sure there are issues about ethics money etc.. but please explain why you care about it at all. This really is the heart of the matter and is something we can talk about and use dispute resolution for if we fail to agree. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

proposed wording

Proposed compromise wording: Although inorganic mercury is less dangerous than methylmercury, both forms are are a threat to human health.85.211.108.65 (talk) 22:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Please provide a MEDRS source that says that levels of inorganic mercury involved here were a danger to human health. I looked for one and couldn't find one. I will be interested if you (or anybody) can. Jytdog (talk) 22:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
The recent addition, "However, the mercury was not methylmercury, the form of mercury that is of most concern to human health" is based on the WebMD source and seems to be our best content based on the current source. It's basically what the current source says. I don't see anything to dispute at this time since it's an accurate summary of the source. Unless someone is going to bring in a better source than WebMD (it's ok for content like this) it doesn't seem like there's anything to discuss. The proposed version by 85 is not what the source says and would be considered original research, so it seems we're left with the most recent addition that's currently reverted. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Actually, what this is about is media coverage. The section addresses a controversy, which is highly notable given that the public disenchantment with this particular product. However, for whatever reason, this is being blocked here in favor of solely WebMD coverage in the name of blocking WP:RS. It's a bizarre situation only really possible when an echo chamber exists between a group of embedded editors with all the time in the world to defend their position. One of the downsides of Misplaced Pages but not likely to be permanent in the long run. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:51, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Please discuss content, not contributors. Thanks. At base this is about health, and needs MEDRS sources. Is this the core of our disagreement? Jytdog (talk) 01:00, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
The core of the disagreement appears to be whether or not this must be purely treated via MEDRS or with WP:RS requirements given the scope of the controversy and the public fallout. I argue that this is beyond the scope of MEDRS; this isn't a strictly medical or health issue by any means and we require a secondary source beyond that scope to properly handle this controversy. At present, it's essentially just swept under the carpet. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:06, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
I will say this one more time - stop commenting on contributors ("sweeping under the carpet" is an accusation of bad faith editing). The next time you do this, I will simply stop responding to you and we will need to work through some more formal process that will slow things down. OK, would you please provide here the content you would want to see, and the sourcing for it? thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:13, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
I've provided it above, thanks. And given your goofy antics here—at this point everything from removing NPOV tags because they're "lame" during active disputes to "accidentally" archiving active talk page threads that I've commented on earlier in the day—maybe it's best that you just do that. Given that you're eager to resort to tactics like that, maybe you should take a break for a while. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:16, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
bloodofox, I just realized that based on what you wrote above, and especially on this dif, where you link to this dif by 85.211.108.65, that you been editing here under a username and an as an IP. I actually thought you were several people. This is a clear violation WP:SOCK. You are the only person supporting the position you have been taking here. That changes everything. Jytdog (talk) 03:20, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Couldn't help noticing this... 'accusation of bad faith editing' indeed... lol

Bees

in this dif Nitrobutane (editing as an IP address) restored a bunch of content built on primary sources. The current section High_fructose_corn_syrup#Beekeeping mentions that and is sourced to a review article, which says that HFCS is being considered as a candidate causal agent for CCD. We don't know if it is or not at this stage. Jytdog (talk) 21:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Going to hopefully address this flurry of activity in other sections later tonight, but I see no reason to add additional bee information here than what Jytdog mentioned (see WP:COATRACK). We already have other articles on colony collapse disorder where detailed information would actually belong. That being said, most recent reviews don't actively discuss HFCS with any significant weight, so it's not likely to stick much in most places. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:12, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I've linked the main article on this subject, Imidacloprid effects on bees in the beekeeping section. This link to more information should suffice, in lieu of the one-page essay another editor tried to add. Mamyles (talk) 21:34, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree that Colony collapse disorder is a better target. Thanks for the correction! Mamyles (talk) 21:40, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

page protection

i have requested page protection to drive discussion. all hell has broken loose here. Jytdog (talk) 22:12, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

And I see that you couldn't resist taking some cheap shots at your fellow edits there as well. Stay classy, Jytdog. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
not a cheap shot. the article is now protected. I hope we can use this time to talk through the issues. Jytdog (talk) 22:51, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
The compromise statement is in the same tone as the original statement, which was talking about the different types of mercury and their relative dangers. And it was a pointless statement, there's no reason in the first place to assume that it is methylmercury.
And yes, it was a cheap shot. When you continuously hack and slash with dozens of edits and have your OWN way with the article, that's fine, but once you run into serious resistance, that's 'all hell breaking loose'.85.211.108.65 (talk) 23:04, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Please discuss content; let's use this time well. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:08, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Summary of medical consensus

Nitrobutane (editing as IP) you removed this summary of three recent reviews:

It is unlikely that there is any connection; the increase in metabolic disease is likely due to people eating too much, and eating too many sweetened foods of any kind, and not exercising enough.

References

  1. Stanhope, Kimber L.; Schwarz, Jean-Marc; Havel, Peter J. (June 2013). "Adverse metabolic effects of dietary fructose". Current Opinion in Lipidology. 24 (3): 198–206. doi:10.1097/MOL.0b013e3283613bca.
  2. Moeller SM et al. The effects of high fructose syrup. J Am Coll Nutr. 2009 Dec;28(6):619-26. PMID 20516261
  3. Staff writers (March 2010). "The lowdown on high-fructose corn syrup". Consumer Reports.

I believe my summary accurately reflects these sources in plain English, per WP:MEDMOS. Please provide your summary of these sources in plain English; we need to include this in the lead. If anybody has a more current review, we can use that as well. (I included the most recent consumer reports statement for two reasons: a) it is a decent popular summary of the science; b) they are famously pro-consumer and if anybody thinks the reviews in the literature are somehow tainted, they have this to look at as well. It is not gold standard MEDRS and I will ditch it if anybody objects. ) Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

there is a more recent source that we should include here, that says the same thing: Rippe JM, Angelopoulos TJ. Sucrose, high-fructose corn syrup, and fructose, their metabolism and potential health effects: what do we really know? Adv Nutr. 2013 Mar 1;4(2):236-45. PMID 23493540 PMC 3649104. Jytdog (talk) 23:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

By 'unencyclopaedic' I meant the word 'people': “people eating too much, and eating too many sweetened...” etc etc. This is too much like speaking directly to the reader. Probably the author didn't use these words precisely; if someone in turn wrote it on their blog, it would sound like imprecation. So it looks odd in a wiki article lead. 'Overeating, overconsumption of sweetened foods and lack of exercise' would look better. Looking at the studies behind the statement:
Third source first, it is a little simplistic, with its lumping together of all sweet foodstuffs and sweeteners, whether based on fructose, sucrose, maltose, anything (“calories are calories”). Now, metabolic differences between individual monosaccharides are well known. The article does accurately reflect the sentiment in some quarters that HFCS concerns are 'too current'. And it's not anti-consumer either.
The fourth source claims the sucrose and HFCS are absorbed identically in the gastrointestinal tract, ignoring the way simple sugars are absorbed directly by the mucous membranes, meaning lining of the mouth, oesophagus, stomach, as well as the small intestine (skipping the sucrase step). This creates higher peak fructose and, together with the dicarbonyls, will oxidatively stress out the hepatocytes, overwhelming their antoxidant defences to a greater extent.
The first source didn't differentiate between HFCS and sucrose at all, made no attempt to do so. Certainly it shows that sugars in excess generally promote metabolic syndrome etc, but doesn't support the idea that it's “unlikely that there is any connection” between metabolic syndrome and HFCS specifically.
Looking at the second source's abstract, the sentence
“The advantage to food manufacturers is that the free monosaccharides in HFCS provide better flavor enhancement, stability, freshness, texture, color, pourability, and consistency in foods in comparison to sucrose. ”
jumps out. To say that they provide better 'stability' and 'freshness' than sucrose, knowing that reducing sugars (especially fructose) are aggressive glycating agents, is just inexplicable; they will proceed to attack the proteins via the well-known Maillard reaction, and create a great amount of AGEs, which will certainly provide 'flavor enhancement' and increase the 'color' (and the rate of glycoxidation/lipoxidation increasing also - stability indeed).
So while the second source you cited, in its own way casts doubt on the difference between sucrose and HFCS re: obesity, there are several other chronic conditions that HFCS in processed foods contributes to.
Now this 2010 review here talks about dietary AGEs (dAGEs), their creation from reducing sugars and proteins etc, and their links to chronic diseases:

“dAGEs are absorbed and contribute significantly to the body’s AGE pool (14–16).

Consumption of AGE-rich diets by mice is associated with elevated circulating and tissue AGEs and conditions such as atherosclerosis (17) and kidney disease (18). On the other hand, restriction of dAGEs prevents vascular and kidney dysfunction (18,19), diabetes type 1 or type 2 (20), improves insulin sensitivity (21,22), and accelerates wound healing (23). Low dAGE intake has also been shown to lengthen lifespan to the same extent as does energy restriction in mice (16). Studies in healthy human beings show that dAGEs directly correlate with circulating AGEs, such as CML and MG, as well as with markers of oxidative stress (24). Moreover, restriction of dAGEs in patients with diabetes (25) or kidney disease (26,27) as well as in healthy subjects (28) also reduces markers of oxidative stress and inflammation.”

There are several other reviews in a similar vein, linking dAGEs to such chronic conditions. PS: I haven't used that account on this article even once, so why talk about it, much less announce it to other editors.85.211.108.65 (talk) 04:02, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog and Archiving of Active Discussions

. Here we see Jytdog (talk · contribs) archiving an active discussion. This is a thread I was adding to earlier today. Absolutely uncool. Exactly why was this buried? :bloodofox: (talk) 00:55, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

my apologies. I didn't notice the recent comment. unarchived. Jytdog (talk) 00:59, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Categories: