News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Organic Food Isn't More Nutritious, but That Isn't the Point. Parent comment

Re:Organic Food Isn't More Nutritious, but That Isn't the Point by xionon on Wednesday September 05, 2012 @07:17PM (#4482012)
Based on context, I think it's clear that stinkytaco was talking about things like high-fructose corn syrup and corn chips and corn-based cereals, as "corn byproducts," opposed to unprocessed vegetables and fruits.

If we're being pedantic, though, corn is a grain, not a vegetable (probably).[1] But that's clearly not what you meant, so it's not really worth digging into.

[1]http://empirezone.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/06/11/corn-vegetabl...

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Organic Food Isn't More Nutritious, but That Isn't the Point by derleth on Wednesday September 05, 2012 @08:16PM (#4482208)
> high-fructose corn syrup and corn chips and corn-based cereals

These are bad to the extent they're calorie-dense and nutrient-poor, which most First-Worlders don't need. They're like honey in that respect. Corn isn't the problem.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Organic Food Isn't More Nutritious, but That Isn't the Point by prodigal_erik on Wednesday September 05, 2012 @11:30PM (#4482724)
There's been speculation about whether fructose and glucose have differing effects on satiety and insulin resistance, but the studies I've seen were conflicting. I assume it's possible to make high-fructose syrup out of other starches, and corn is only associated because it's cheap and commonly used.
[ Parent | on HN ]