Popcorn a healthy nutritional treat? I did not know that.

[Dover]

I've limited my intake of popcorn and corn in general having placed it in the 'bad carb'(sugars) category years ago.
I suppose if this information is reliable then I might consider reintroducing it into my snack options. However, I'd only buy the organic popping corn and forego the butter, either air pop it or use a healthy oil and limit the salt. Would avoid the microwave, prepackaged
or movie theatre varieties.


FACTS

Nutrition Info:
http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/snacks/5356/2

Popcorn is a whole grain that contains 40 or more nutrients.

-The germ in the popcorn kernel contains all of the B complex vitamins, plus vitamin E, Riboflavin and Thiamine.

-Popcorn has more protein than any other cereal grain

-Popcorn has more iron than eggs, peanuts, spinach, or roast beef!

-The hull and outer layers are rich in iron, phosphorous and protein.

-Popcorn has more phosphorous and fiber than potato chips, ice cream cones, or pretzels

-Popcorn is a colorie counter's delight! Unbuttered popcorn only has between 25 and 55 calories per cup.


Popcorn, a well known "funfood", is considered a wholesome snack by leading medical associations and nutrition professionals:

- The American Dental Association recommends popcorn as a sugar-free snack. Popcorn is listed by the ADA as a suggested sugar free, fat free, and low in calories snack along with several other notables such as apples, pears, celery, plain yogurt, nuts and cheese.

-The National Cancer Institute(NCI), the federal government's cancer prevention agency, suggests fiber in the diet to reduce the risk of some forms of cancer and the American Dietetic Association recommends popcorn as a high fiber snack food in their list of " 10 Great Ways to Fiber Up!" The National Institue of Dental and Craniofacial Research lists popcorn as a smart, low/no-sugar snack. The American Diabetes Association and the American dietetic Association permit popcorn as a starch exchange on weight-control diets, and the Feingold Diet for hyeractive children permits popcorn because it contains no artificial additives.

- Because popcorn contributes to the overall health and maintenance of the body, the American Diabetes Association permit popcorn as a bread exchange on weight control diets.

- Popcorn is listed third out of a list of 11 as eleven Things That Don't Cause Cancer.

-Pocorn aids digestion by providing necessary roughage, also known as fiber.

The experts agree. Popcorn is all-around "good" food-healthy, economical and tasty.

http://www.standardconcessionsupply.com/popcornfacts.html
....


How to Season Popcorn With Nutritional Yeast

Nutritional yeast is a non-active form of yeast that the Ancient Egyptians prized for its health-boosting qualities. Rich in amino acids, a complete protein and fantastic source of B complex vitamins, nutritional yeast is a healthy and tasty addition to just about any food, including freshly popped popcorn. A good substitute for achieving a parmesan cheese-type flavor.

Emily's Famous Popcorn Recipe:

Ingredients
2 tablespoons vegetable oil
3/4 cup unpopped popcorn
1/4 cup butter, melted (optional)
1/4 cup nutritional yeast
1 tablespoon chili powder
1 teaspoon ground cumin
1/2 teaspoon salt, or to taste

Directions
Heat oil in a large saucepan or soup pot over medium-high heat. Add popcorn, and place the lid on the pan. Shake to coat kernels with oil. When the corn starts to pop, shake the pan constantly until the popping stops. Remove from heat, and pour popped corn into a large bowl.
Drizzle the melted butter over the corn if using, and sprinkle with yeast, chili powder, cumin and salt. I like to give it a little stir before serving.

Nutritional Information
Amount Per Serving Calories: 223 | Total Fat: 13.9g | Cholesterol: 20mg

Nutritional Information
Emily's Famous Popcorn
Servings Per Recipe: 6

Amount Per Serving

Calories: 223
Total Fat: 13.9g
Cholesterol: 20mg
Sodium: 265mg
Total Carbs: 21g
Dietary Fiber: 5.5g
Protein: 6g

[Davis_X_Machina]

1. And you can pack fine china in it for shipping...

...as my mom did 60 years ago at Jordan Marsh.

[LaurenG]

78. Or ship Christmas presents or any presents

I sent a huge box of goodies packed in popcorn to my husband who was over Iraq in the 90's. He and his squad ate all the packing material. :D

[HuckleB]

2. There's nothing wrong with popcorn, corn on the cob etc...

Unless that's all you're eating. The truth is that even HFCS isn't something to be scared of in moderation.

[TheWraith]

5. Bing!

The reason that there's no magical miracle diet is because most foods are okay in moderation and bad in excess.

[HuckleB]

11. Indeed. -eom-

[Taverner]

9. The reason HFCS is so dangerous has nothing to do with corn

And everything to do with how the sugar molecules are isolated, extracted and the fructose ramped up to unhealthy levels

Consider it the difference between 1 beer and 2 bottles of 180 proof vodka

[HuckleB]

10. The real problem with HFCS is that people eat too much of it.

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=6501

[Taverner]

12. Well there is that, but the insulin spike in HFCS is where the danger really is

It takes much more HFCS to sweeten something than table sugar, hence the insulin spike

[HuckleB]

13. How do you figure that?

On edit, trotsky explained this most efficiently.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=222&topic_id=93589&mesg_id=93598

[Taverner]

14. Have you ever tasted pure fructose? Barely sweet.

I had a friend who was learning how to make HFCS in college. Pure fructose is barely sweet - whereas sucrose packs a lot more bang for the buck, molecule per molecule.

Now, drinking a half a case of Mexican coke will hurt you in the same way as HFCS will. Too much sugar is too much sugar.

However, freaking out your insulin every so often is not good for you. The jury is out, however, on what the long term effects are.

Labs have proven that there is no link between HFCS and Diabetes. However, they have found links between liver damage and HFCS.

[HuckleB]

16. Sucrose is a disaccharide made of fructose and glucose.

HFCS is also fructose and glucose.

More:
http://drpullen.com/high-fructose-corn-syrup/

[Taverner]

17. Yes, but the fructose is highly jacked up

The glucose isn't

[HuckleB]

18. What?

Try reading the links I've provided. Thanks.

PS:" Sucrose is made of 50% fructose and 50% glucose, whereas high-fructose corn syrup can be either 55% fructose, 45% glucose, or 42% fructose, 58% glucose."

From: http://www.sixwise.com/newsletters/2009/april/29/glucose-fructose-sucrose-whats-the-difference.htm

[Taverner]

19. I challenge this article:

Actually, most people fail to realize that HFCS is composed of the exact same sugar combination found in table sugar and honey (fructose and glucose) in virtually the exact same ratios. This is only partially correct.

The problem is that HFCS has a large amount of reactive carbonyls, which are not present in table sugar. Hell, they aren't even found in corn syrup.

It is a byproduct of the fructose processing that brings those ratios to the same as table sugar.

And get this - it doesn't even taste the same!

If you can get your hands on some HFCS do a little test. Put 1 oz of HFCS in one bowl, 1 oz of table sugar in another.

Now lick your finger and taste. The HFCS will be less sweet, and you will need more to get to the same relative sweetness in table sugar. As a result, there is more HFCS in Coke than there is sugar in Mexican Coke.

[HuckleB]

21. Challenge away.

So far you've just been making it up as you go along. I've provided two very strong pieces written by MD's.

Your little anecdotal test doesn't mean a thing. It means you've failed to look at the make up of the products in question.

Again: Sucrose is made of 50% fructose and 50% glucose, whereas high-fructose corn syrup can be either 55% fructose, 45% glucose, or 42% fructose, 58% glucose.

[Taverner]

24. I can show you studies that challenge your studies

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100322121115.htm

AKA the Bocarsly study.

And yes, I know there are counter-studies.

So like I said earlier, we are not going to find the answer here.

[HuckleB]

27. As has been shown repeatedly in these discussions...

... the plethora of evidence does not show HFCS to be any more harmful than sucrose.

Individual studies are nice, but they are mere steps in a long process. That's why the two pieces I offered are so valuable. They take the full context of evidence into the equation.

[Taverner]

28. But so does the Princeton study

Just sayin'

[HuckleB]

31. Oh, two studies!

On mice!

The Princeton study has been ripped to shreds.

[Taverner]

34. Ahem, here are the complete studies

Bocarsly et al.

Bocarsly et al.<39> completed a 2010 study where groups of 10 rats were given water sweetened with either 8% HFCS 12 hrs/day, 8% HFCS 24 hrs/day, or 10% sucrose 12 hrs/day (table sugar), all with ad libitum rodent chow, or only ad libitum rodent chow for a duration of 8 weeks. Then groups of 8 male rats were fed to compare diets with added sweetener in the form of HFCS to ones without added sweetener for 6 months. Then groups of 8 female rats were fed to compare diets with no or different kinds of added sweeteners to ones without for 7 months.

The set of rats on HFCS 12 hrs/day gained 48 percent more weight than a set of rats on sucrose 12 hrs/day in young males over the short term, but less in adult females over the long term. They also reported that the rats on HFCS 24 hrs/day did not gain a statistically significant amount of weight when compared to the rats on sucrose or chow only. Additionally, no differences in blood-glucose levels were observed.

Another study was conducted for 6–7 months, and fat pads were removed from the rats and weighed. Fat pads for rats on HFCS 12 hrs/day weighed significantly more than rats on chow only, but weighed less, but not significantly so, than rats on sucrose. Fat pads for rats on HFCS 24 hrs/day did not have a statistically different weight than rats on chow only. The rats fed with 24h HFCS also had higher triglyceride (TG) levels than rats fed 12h sucrose or chow only, indicating signs of metabolic syndrome. TG levels were not tested for rats fed 24h sucrose, and other studies indicate that sucrose and HFCS have similar post-metabolic profiles <39>. The study methodology has been criticized <40>.

Elliot et al.

Elliot et al.implicate increased consumption of fructose (due primarily to the increased consumption of sugars but also partly due to the slightly higher fructose content of HFCS as compared to sucrose) in obesity and insulin resistance. Chi-Tang Ho et al. found that soft drinks sweetened with HFCS are up to 10 times richer in harmful carbonyl compounds, such as methylglyoxal, than a diet soft drink control, and claimed that sucrose does not have the same tendency to produce these compounds.<42> Carbonyl compounds are elevated in people with diabetes and are blamed for causing diabetic complications such as foot ulcers and eye and nerve damage.<43><44>
Stanhope et al.

A 2008 study in humans (supported in part with funding from Pepsico, Inc., the USDA, and the American Diabetes Association) analyzed the circulating levels of glucose, insulin, leptin, ghrelin, and triacylglycerol during a 24 hour period after consuming drinks containing HFCS or sucrose. The researchers concluded that the consumption of HFCS or sucrose did not yield differing metabolic effects.<45>

Tate & Lyle

Several studies funded by Tate & Lyle, a large corn refiner, the American Beverage Institute and the Corn Refiners Association,<46><47> have defended HFCS. Forshee et al. concluded "that HFCS does not appear to contribute to overweight and obesity any differently than do other energy sources."<26> Melanson et al. (2006), studied the effects of HFCS and sucrose sweetened drinks on blood glucose, insulin, leptin, and ghrelin levels. They found no significant differences in any of these parameters.<48> Monsivais et al. (2007) compared the effects of isocaloric servings of colas sweetened with HFCS 42, HFCS 55, sucrose, and aspartame on satiety and subsequent energy intake.<49> They found that all of the drinks with caloric sweeteners produced similar satiety responses, and had the same effects on subsequent energy intake.

Bray et al.

One much-publicized 2004 study found an association between obesity and high HFCS consumption, especially from soft drinks.<50> However, this study provided only correlative data. One of the study coauthors, Dr. Barry M. Popkin, is quoted in The New York Times as saying, "I don't think there should be a perception that high-fructose corn syrup has caused obesity until we know more."<51> In the same article, Walter Willett, chair of the nutrition department of the Harvard School of Public Health, is quoted as saying, "There's no substantial evidence to support the idea that high-fructose corn syrup is somehow responsible for obesity .... If there was no high-fructose corn syrup, I don't think we would see a change in anything important." Willett also recommends drinking water over soft drinks containing sugars or high-fructose corn syrup.<52>
Mercury

A pilot study reported that some high-fructose corn syrup manufactured in the U.S. in 2005 contained trace amounts of mercury. The mercury appeared to come from sodium hydroxide and hydrochloric acid, two chemicals used in the manufacture of high-fructose corn syrup. This mixture used to produce HFCS may have come from plants also specializing in industrial chlorine chlor-alkali using the mercury cell Castner-Kellner process, and may contain traces of mercury if this specific process is utilized. Mercury concentrations in the samples testing positive ranged from 0.012 μg/g to 0.570 μg/g (micrograms per gram). Nine of the twenty samples tested did contain measurable amounts of mercury.<53>

Liver disease

A March 18, 2010 Duke University Medical Center study found that "increased consumption of high fructose corn syrup was associated with scarring in the liver, or fibrosis, among patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD)."<54> Another study which compared HFCS to sucrose in rats found that both caused fatty liver.



These are the major studies. Please take note that I included your studies as well as mine.

[HuckleB]

37. Ahem. I've read them, and I've read plenty of others.

As I've noted, I've gone through these before at DU, and I've then dug into them to see what they actually say, and they don't say much. Typically, there is no comparison to other sweeteners in these studies, which means they mean almost nothing, at this point. Further, studies with 10 rats are a dime a dozen, and the vast majority of them lead to dead ends. It's time to get a clue. Research is ongoing, and your list is hardly complete. It's likely very minimal at best, and likely filled with studies with serious problems.

On other hand, many scientists have looked at the research more as a whole.

HFCS: the good, the bad, and the sinfully sweet
http://scienceblogs.com/neurotopia/2009/03/hfcs_the_good_the_bad_and_the.php

High Fructose Corn Syrup – The Latest Nutritional Boogeyman
http://theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=568

HFCS - High fructose corn syrup - the myths continue
http://www.examiner.com/food-in-new-york/hfcs-high-fructose-corn-syrup-the-myths-continue

The Science of Sugars: A Dietitian’s Perspective
http://healthyblogsnack.com/index.php/2009/10/19/the-science-of-sugars-a-dietitians-perspective/

[mzmolly]

53. I noticed that you posted studies, the person responding to you posted

op ed pieces, while referring to them studies. ;)

Very interesting information. Thank you for sharing.

[HuckleB]

57. Where did I call them studies?

[mzmolly]

59. I assumed when you said,

"I've read them (referring to the studies posted by Taverner), and I've read plenty of others," that you were suggesting your articles were the "others" in question. I may have misunderstood.

[HuckleB]

60. You definitely misunderstood.

[HuckleB]

61. Study Shows No Differences in Weight Gain Between Sucrose, High-Fructose Corn Syrup

http://www.webmd.com/diet/news/20101011/how-sugar-compares-with-high-fructose-corn-syrup

And that just shows what other studies in this vein have shown in the past:


Is High-Fructose Corn Syrup a Safe Alternative to Sucrose?
http://www.scribd.com/doc/13510478/Is-HighFructose-Corn-Syrup-a-Safe-Alternative-to-Sucrose

[HuckleB]

72. More studies...

Study of high-fructose corn syrup and sucrose consumption = no difference
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17234503

Sugars and satiety: does the type of sweetener make a difference? (no)
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/86/1/116

Twenty-four-hour endocrine and metabolic profiles following consumption of high-fructose corn syrup-, sucrose-, fructose-, and glucose-sweetened beverages with meals (no difference)
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/87/5/1194

And a nice review:

In Worries About Sweeteners, Think of All Sugars
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/20/in-worries-about-sweeteners-think-of-all-sugars/

[Taverner]

22. Let me add: we aren't going to find the answer here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-fructose_corn_syrup

Some allege that HFCS is in itself more detrimental to health than table sugar (sucrose); others claim that the low cost of HFCS encourages overconsumption of sugars. The Corn Refiners Association has launched an aggressive advertising campaign to counter these criticisms, claiming that high-fructose corn syrup "is natural" and "has the same natural sweeteners as table sugar". Both sides point to studies in peer reviewed journals that allegedly support their point of view.

Neither of us are doctors, so in the end, this will just degenerate into 'he said/she said'

So agree to disagree?

[HuckleB]

23. No, we're not.

Nice red herring.

I get it. You think HFCS is evil, and you'll say anything to push that viewpoint.

That's your decision. It's not based in science, however.

[Taverner]

26. Red Herring? I'm just stating the truth

I mean, I have a study (Bocarsly) you have yours (I am guessing Tate & Lyle)

[HuckleB]

29. I've posted multiple studies when discussing this before.

I have no need to play that game, especially with someone who is clearly invested in his predetermined viewpoint, and who fails to read the links I provided, when I provided them, and probably still hasn't read them.

It's clear that you will not look at the evidence as a whole, so there is no point in my wasting my time.

[Taverner]

32. Whatever man...you and I both know there are studies on both sides

And as expected, they differ.

Only difference is one study is funded by the Corn Lobby, the other not.

[HuckleB]

38. There are always studies "on both sides.'

The majority of the evidence available today indicates that HFCS is just as risky as, wait, sucrose!

Remember you started this whole thing by trying to claim that sucrose was actually sweeter than HFCS. Please don't pretend that you've actually looked at this issue at all beyond the propaganda.

WOW!

[Tumbulu]

40. You won the debate Tavener

Your posts make sense and Huckle's are the same ol' same ol'

Thanks for posting

[HuckleB]

46. Nice try.

:rofl:

Is this the new woo technique? Claim the woo pusher -- in this case a woo pusher who didn't even know the make up of sucrose and HFCS -- won the debate?

Goodness.

[Crunchy Frog]

68. So the new definition of a "woo" is

someone who disagrees with HuckleB? :shrug:

[HuckleB]

70. And now the classic woo red herring.

:rofl:

Disagreement needs to be honest, truly open minded (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI ) and knowledgeable. Woo is the opposite of that. If wooites are going to claim that their fellow wooites won a debate with no basis for their claim, especially considering that the fellow wooite showed that he knew nothing about the topic from the word go, well, I guess if you're a wooite that's par for the course, but we're not talking about mere disagreement here. We're talking about wooite fantasy.

:rofl:

[mzmolly]

54. Agreed.

Same ol same ol'. :hi:

[HuckleB]

58. I'm sorry that reality bothers you.

[mzmolly]

62. I'm sorry that you've never heard a pro-corporate talking point,

that you didn't love.

[hedgehog]

44. Reactive carbonyls - would those be oxidants, as in the oxidants

we eat fruit and vegetable with anti-oxidants to counter?

[HuckleB]

47. The Horror. -eom-

[hedgehog]

49. No, seriously. Every argument I've seen has focused on the sucrose/fructose

ratios as if those are the only factors involved. The fact that HFCS involves additional chemicals that may have an effect on metabolism or overall health is news to me. If the reactive carbonyls are in fact oxidants, that introduces an entire new topic of discussion.

[HuckleB]

50. One or two very preliminary studies address "reactive carbonyls" in regard to HFCS.

These are the type of studies that come a dime a dozen, however. Much bigger studies must be done.

This is a piece on a study published in New Scientist:

Soda Warning? High-Fructose Corn Syrup Linked To Diabetes, New Study Suggests
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070823094819.htm

The first thing that jumps out is that this study did not compare HFCS to other sweeteners. Thus, it really doesn't tell us if HFCS is any worse than sucrose or the others.

[mzmolly]

55. Agreed.

I wasn't aware of reactive carbonyls being an issue.

[trotsky]

42. No it isn't.

Fructose is a molecule. Like water is a molecule. You put two hydrogen atoms together with an oxygen atom, you've got water. Doesn't matter if that happened from burning hydrogen gas in oxygen or from a hydrogen peroxide molecule losing an oxygen atom. It's still water.

Same with fructose. As long as it contains the proper atoms (6 Carbon, 12 Hydrogen, 6 Oxygen) in the proper arrangement, it's fructose. Created by enzymes from starch or found in an apple you pluck from a tree, it's fructose. There's no "jacked up" version.

Please, know some basic facts.

[HuckleB]

48. Facts are not allowed! -eom-

[truedelphi]

33. Actually, last year, a study out of Rutgers University found

Serious indications that HFCS does cause diabetes.

[trotsky]

43. Perhaps you can post a link to this study? n/t

[truedelphi]

51. Better than that - here are TWO Studies

One published in the Journal of Endocronology, and the other from Rutgers

Study published in endocrinology journal

http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/content/full/jcem;89/6/2963

Dietary Fructose Reduces Circulating Insulin and Leptin, Attenuates Postprandial Suppression of Ghrelin, and Increases Triglycerides in Women
Karen L. Teff, Sharon S. Elliott, Matthias Tschöp, Timothy J. Kieffer, Daniel Rader, Mark Heiman, Raymond R. Townsend, Nancy L. Keim, David D’Alessio and Peter J. Havel

Monell Chemical Senses Center (K.L.T.) and Department of Medicine (K.L.T., D.R., R.R.T.), University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104; Department of Nutrition, University of California, Davis (S.S.E., P.J.H.), Davis, California 95616; University of British Columbia (T.J.K.), Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada V6T 1Z4; Eli Lilly (M.T., M.H.), Indianapolis, Indiana 46285; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Western Human Nutrition Research Center (N.L.K.), Davis, California 95616; and Department of Medicine, University of Cincinnati (D.D.), Cincinnati, Ohio 45267

Rutgers Study - HFCS Could Cause Diabetes

A 2007 study conducted at Rutgers University tested 11 different carbonated beverages containing HFCS and found “astonishingly high” amounts of reactive carbonyls <5>. Reactive carbonyls are believed to cause cell and tissue damage that could lead to diabetes. Reactive carbonyls are not found in regular table sugar.

Further remarks from article about Rutgers study

HFCS Causes Other Health Damage

HFCS also chelates minerals in our blood, causing deficiencies in certain nutrients like chromium, zinc and copper. Every cell in the body uses glucose, but fructose can only be metabolized in the liver. Studies have shown that a diet high in HFCS and sugar can cause liver disease, just like that found in alcoholics <6>.
webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:mqip8WQQx30J:factoidz.com/does-high-fructose-corn-syrup-cause-obesity-and-diabetes/+Rutgers+university+%2B+study+%2B+diabetes+%2B+"high+fructose+corn+syrup"&cd=8&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us


A diet high in HFCS is now believed to cause insulin resistance, gout, high cholesterol and fat to accumulate in the body. It causes gout because HFCS raises the uric acid levels of the body. Over consumption of fructose also leads to high triglycerides, which can be a sign of heart disease and diabetes.

A diet high in high fructose corn syrup raises blood pressure. All of these factors lead to what is called the metabolic syndrome <7>.

Fructose Without Fiber

Proponents argue that high fructose corn syrup can’t be bad for our health because there is plenty of fructose in fruit. That is correct. There is one big difference; there is a lot of fiber in fruit. Fructose with fiber is not a problem; fructose without fiber is a health problem. Fructose in nature has a lot of fiber. The fructose made from corn is not the same fructose sugar found in fruit. The fructose in fruit does not interfere with the leptin hormone.

[trotsky]

56. The fascinating thing here is that neither study says what you think it says.

The first one talks about a diet high in *fructose*. Not high in HFCS. I realize that both things contain the words "high" and "fructose" but you really need to understand the difference. Their conclusion is that consuming too much fructose from any source is what's bad. That would include table sugar. HFCS is not a demon to be singled out.

The Rutgers study's biggest flaw is that it didn't contain a sucrose control group. They compared HFCS drinks to diet drinks. A truly comprehensive study - one that could more clearly finger HFCS as a culprit - would have included a cane sugar sweetened sampling as well. That study is also poorly designed in that several other ingredients in sodas contain or are carbonyls, such as carbon dioxide itself.

So, got anything that's relevant and well-designed?

[truedelphi]

64. As far as something that is relevant and well designed -

It gets harder and harder - as the Big Industry money designs the studies to make their products appear to be healthy.

One doesn't have to think too hard to realize why there was no direct comparison in the Rutgers study between HFCS and sugar.

[trotsky]

65. Ah, of course.

If there isn't any data to support your belief, claim it's being suppressed by unnamed evil powerful forces.

Tinfoil 101.

Tell me, how did "Big Industry" allow the Rutgers study to happen at all? Flawed, it pins more blame on HFCS than is warranted. Seems like a really stupid PR move for an incredibly powerful and shrewd Industry. Why would they make such a dumb mistake?

[truedelphi]

66. Actually, your original response to mine indicates a curious

jump across a logic gate.

If a study shows that FRUCTOSE is not good, even if it is in comparison to some other product (in the case above, diet sweeteners) and HFCS is indeed fructose, than why object to that study and pretend that the study doesn't implicate the fructose?

[trotsky]

67. Let's go over this again.

HFCS is NOT fructose. It contains fructose - AND glucose. In the variety of HFCS most commonly found in soft drinks and food items, they are present in about a 55%-45% ratio.

Pure honey also consists of fructose and glucose. And guess what? It's also in a roughly 55-45 ratio.

Sucrose (table sugar) is a disaccharide of fructose and glucose. That means it's a 50-50 mix.

If you consume *a lot* of ANY of the above substances, you are consuming *a lot* of fructose. Your body does not care where the fructose came from. The fructose from HFCS is not any more deadly or dangerous or anything than it is from honey or sugar.

So now I've answered your question and shown there is no logic gate to cross, only one of ignorance. Will you return the favor and tell me why the all-powerful corn industry, which in your estimation has blocked all evidence supporting your opinion, allowed a flawed study from Rutgers to see the light of day?

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[trotsky]

71. Sorry but facts always win.

You can't dispute the facts, so you whine that I wasn't polite enough and then launch a personal attack of your own.

The debate is indeed over, but only because you were wrong.

[Tumbulu]

74. wrong to say that when someone calls another person's post

ignorant that I automatically assume that the poster who is denigrating the other poster is posting in a manner that I consider to be bullying and my experience with bullies is that they are usually not that knowledgeable?

Facts aren't winners they simply become evident.

I did not participate in the debate. Just read the posts and have formed my own opinion.

[trotsky]

76. No, you didn't participate in the debate.

You just jumped in to launch a personal attack, which thankfully was deleted. And then you try to lecture someone else on bullying. It is to laugh.

[Tumbulu]

77. So, have I ever called one of your posts "ignorant"?

I am very weary of reading these attacks (in fact I think I have been commenting about this for two years now?) and I found it preposterous that TrueDelphi's posts were being called "ignorant" . TrueDelphi's posts are generally very informed and intelligent. If there was any attack it was made against trying to "win" a debate by calling the other posters post "ignorant".

I stand by my conclusions.

[trotsky]

79. I didn't call anyone's posts "ignorant". Quit with the strawmen.

What I said, exactly, was:

"there is no logic gate to cross, only one of ignorance"

(Ignorance, by the way, is defined as "The condition of being uneducated, unaware, or uninformed." Is it not an insult. There are plenty of things I'm ignorant about, just as there are many you are ignorant of as well.)

However, I did not call anyone (or their posts) ignorant. Feel free to retract that false accusation. That is a strawman of YOUR creation, one you are using to attack me, and thankfully the mods here noticed when you crossed the line.

Now do you have ANYTHING resembling a fact that can be used to dispute what I've said above? Or do you merely wish to keep engaging in personal attacks and ignore the topic of the thread?

[HuckleB]

80. +1

[HuckleB]

73. That's quite the spin.

Twice now, you've chosen to claim that a poster who has shown no actual knowledge of the issue "won" the "debate." That's an odd thing to do, when the evidence doesn't support your claim.

[Warren Stupidity]

3. butter and salt aren't nt.

[tridim]

7. For the salt part, I grind kosher salt in a mortar and pestle into powder.

At that point you can use about 1/4th the amount of salt and it still tastes very salty.

Surface area baby!

[maxsolomon]

8. when you make it fresh, add a miniscule amount of sodium

i don't add butter because the canola oil has plenty of fat.

all things in moderation, and don't eat the microwaved kind.

[Abq_Sarah]

75. Not true

I eat popcorn once in a blue moon popped in coconut oil and slathered in Irish butter and salt.

[Saturday]

4. And you can eat a big pile of it and think you're pigging out....

and only consume 100 calories. :)

[cutlassmama]

6. The OP says 223 calories. I guess it depends on which kind

[Warpy]

15. As long as you avoid that microwave crap

popcorn is pretty good for you. Oil, butter and salt are what make it bad, so pop it in just enough oil to do the trick and add just enough salt and butter to make it palatable. Fine sea salt sticks better than the stuff in the blue box. Butter can be heated with light oil to reduce cholesterol while still giving that buttery flavor.

I've tried eating air popped popcorn, even with Red Star yeast, but it really needs a little oil and a little salt.

As long as you go easy on the fat and salt, it's a great snack. It'll keep you regular, too.

[SocialistLez]

20. +1

Plus the chemicals in the bag are not all that great.

I still eat microwavable popcorn but not nearly as much as I used to.

[kestrel91316]

25. Popcorn is my evening snack of choice. I pop it on the stovetop in a skillet

using canola oil most of the time and lard occasionally. No butter (well maybe rarely), and always sprinkled with seasoned salt or those cheese-flavored sprinkles.

[lillypaddle]

30. Popcorn without butter & salt?

Sheesh, what's the point? Might as well eat styrofoam.

[Dover]

35. There are popcorn seasonings that you shake on, among which is a butter flavoring.

I don't have a clue what's actually in them but a friend served me some popcorn once that tasted plenty buttery and he told me it was actually a butter substitute seasoning. There are also spray on butter substitutes.
And there are now so many different flavored salts. Just use less of it.

[mzmolly]

63. Invest in a Whirley Pop

http://www.amazon.com/Wabash-Valley-Farms-25008-Whirley-Pop/dp/B00004SU35

You can use small amounts of butter and get great tasting popcorn. ;)

[Happyhippychick]

36. You can simply put kernels in a paper bag and pop in the microwave. No oil needed.

[evirus]

39. Nutritional isn't synonymous with healthy, hence your confusion...

for example, a cheese burger with all the fixings is vary nutritious; something from every food group, but thats not to mean you'll maintain a healthy weight eating them for every meal. in the same way popcorn is nutritious regardless of what other health effects it may have.

[Dorian Gray]

41. What are the other health effects?

[hedgehog]

45. We've been taught to avoid fat like poison for years now, but

certain fats are heart healthy!

Make an effort to consume more mono-unsaturated fats such as flaxseed and olive oils, which pack more heart-healthy lignans than other oils. This will help reduce the risk of heart disease, diabetes, and eye disorders; enhance bone health; and even make your skin more supple.

But we're not talking about drowning your bruschetta in olive oil. Limit yourself to about 1 1/2 tablespoons of these healthy fats out of a total of 4 1/2 tablespoons per day.

http://www.prevention.com/health/weight-loss/diets/weight-loss/article/f25388dc78803110VgnVCM10000013281eac____/5

[truedelphi]

52. A very good recommendation. Thank you for mentioning this. n/t

[Why Syzygy]

81. Buy it organic.

One supplier >

http://www.farmersteve.com/

I've been predicting that popcorn is going to be the next "It" food item. Look for it to be presented in colors and various seasonings.