Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

.Layne Norton, PhD: "Biochemically there is very little difference between cane sugar and high fructose corn syrup...if you're telling me a 5% difference in fructose.. is somehow going to change our nations health...you're putting energy into stuff that won't make a bit of difference"

428,099 views • 1 year ago •via X (Twitter)

34 Comments

Matt Victor's profile picture
Matt Victor1 year ago

@BioLayne You are obsessed with this and totally missing the mark. All little steps are a good thing. What is your issue with this one topic?

Jacob Davidson's profile picture
Jacob Davidson1 year ago

@BioLayne This isn’t the hill to die on bro and I like your work. It’s an incremental step to take down a behemoth. You think they were going to halve all sugar content over night? Take the wins and move on to the next battle

Blood&Toil's profile picture
Blood&Toil1 year ago

@BioLayne Engineers cream their pants over a 5% improvement. It's not saving the world... But every small step in the right direction should be celebrated.

Drain Bamage's profile picture
Drain Bamage1 year ago

@BioLayne Positive changes across the spectrum of food products is a good thing, not a bad thing. It all adds up.

Michael's profile picture
Michael1 year ago

@BioLayne Krystal is turning your brain to mush take a break

Christopher Ż Ÿ🧢's profile picture
Christopher Ż Ÿ🧢1 year ago

@BioLayne Saagar lol, give it a rest, food police is never gonna fly in the US. Getting away from HFCS and seed oil are just easy things to implement, general health guidelines are still there and by no means the NIH is saying people can eat these things without limits.

pete asplund's profile picture
pete asplund1 year ago

@BioLayne There is a big difference in insulin response. That is key, and it is well-studied. Start there.

Jasper's profile picture
Jasper1 year ago

@BioLayne Sugar molecules with a hydrogen in a different orientation, although chemically read the exact same, can functionally be different.

jpskydawg's profile picture
jpskydawg1 year ago

@BioLayne Dude starts working out and eating correctly and now wants to say maha is dumb and we need crap in our foods… because calories..

Nick Newell's profile picture
Nick Newell1 year ago

@BioLayne How about we don’t drink soda period

Trench Fickler 🪖's profile picture
Trench Fickler 🪖1 year ago

Midwit take. No sense of scale. 5% less sugar across how many drinks per person per day? For 365 days for over 350,000,000 Americans? That’s a lot of sugar that’s not being converted to fat. That’s actually a significant number of lives saved at that kind of scale. But yeah, sure, it’s a nominal difference between two 12oz cans. 🙄

Mr.Nobody's profile picture
Mr.Nobody1 year ago

@BioLayne lol, first something with a 5% difference is significant at scale. Second, Human’s share 98% of their DNA with monkeys. That argument lacks merit, as we can see small differences can lead to vastly different results.

Dominic Michael Tripi's profile picture
Dominic Michael Tripi1 year ago

@BioLayne Layne Norton is great, wasn’t expecting to see him on BP. 🫡

TheBigO99's profile picture
TheBigO991 year ago

@BioLayne Stick with your corn syrup then.

TeLeFaWx's profile picture
TeLeFaWx1 year ago

@BioLayne The downstream health and economic benefits of not putting corn syrup in everything, not just soda, something you don’t do with sugar… and subsidizing the corn industry as a result, is such a net win. Take the win and stop trying to be the dork in class raising his hand.

Message Discipline's profile picture
Message Discipline1 year ago

Even the guest says that we're eating less sugar and yet obesity continues to rise. I don't think that's all about substituting HFCS for sugar, but I do believe it's due to eating cheaper, processed substitutes for real food, and HFCS is a great flag for which manufacturers just care about the cheapest ingredients possible. I don't understand why anyone would be on the other side of this issue - clearly we need to clean up our food system, and even if this move is largely symbolic - well, symbolism is also important.

David Moncur's profile picture
David Moncur1 year ago

@BioLayne Enough with this nonsense Saagar. This is really where you’re at??? I thought Krystal was bad enough. Now you? Ugh.

CampWell's profile picture
CampWell1 year ago

@BioLayne But wouldn't 5% difference overtime makes a huge difference?

Aaron Ely's profile picture
Aaron Ely1 year ago

@BioLayne Putting cocaine back in it will

Area10/67's profile picture
Area10/671 year ago

@BioLayne Bro, it’s not just about cane sugar. Let it go.

Wendi A. Irlbeck MS, RDN, LD, CISSN's profile picture
Wendi A. Irlbeck MS, RDN, LD, CISSN1 year ago

No matter who is in office it's always going to be about money. If we really wanted to MAHA 🇺🇸 again we wouldn't be changing the ingredients in ultra processed foods. We would be changing the way people ate with access to healthy and affordable foods while educating how to actually eat nutritious foods to live a healthy lifestyle. More lean protein, fruits, veggies, healthy fats and less processed carbs. People would be healthier if we focused on changing habits. 👇 🤷‍♀️

Tequila Mocking Bird's profile picture
Tequila Mocking Bird1 year ago

@BioLayne That 5% difference is an overall reduction of 10% in glucose content compared to HFCS. Not to mention it taste better and is in a glass bottle ;)

The Most Hye's profile picture
The Most Hye1 year ago

@BioLayne Thank you, @BioLayne - this fraud RFK needs to be cooked. People are taking victory laps over seed oils and food dyes, neither of which makes a difference to these obese pigs slogging around

CrumbCollector's profile picture
CrumbCollector1 year ago

@BioLayne wrong. totally. please examine the insulin response and duration. vastly worse with fructose.

Chucky's profile picture
Chucky1 year ago

@BioLayne Corn syrup (HFCS) hits faster than cane sugar: it’s free glucose + fructose, absorbed immediately. Fructose goes to the liver, bypasses insulin, and can turn to fat more easily—while cane sugar digests slower but ends up the same mix. #Metabolism #Nutrition

TinCupTradingCo's profile picture
TinCupTradingCo1 year ago

@BioLayne It tastes better.

Scrubs's profile picture
Scrubs1 year ago

@BioLayne 30 minutes of 2 guys crying how it’s not enough. We all know it will never be enough for these types of people though

WinterHoldier MD's profile picture
WinterHoldier MD1 year ago

@BioLayne Layne has yet to respond to @ChrisMasterjohn very thorough masterclass on the differences between PUFAs and MUFAs and why it matters physiologically. Thats because he only pretends to invite critique and never addresses real ones.

Breezy's profile picture
Breezy1 year ago

@BioLayne This is so bad. To compare natural sugar that humans have been eating for thousands of years to a man made chemical concoction within the last 50 saying it’s virtually identical is insane. Please bring on @dr_ericberg

Sanjay Dani's profile picture
Sanjay Dani1 year ago

@BioLayne Ok listened to the whole thing until it devolved into a GLP-1 commercial. Unless that was the set up, you two must be devoid of critical thinking to not bring satiety into comparing foods. How disingenuous! Saagar, as someone who can’t control own weight, stop sounding so sure.

fungi4truth🙏 🇻🇦⛪️🇲🇽 🇺🇸💔4🇵🇸's profile picture
fungi4truth🙏 🇻🇦⛪️🇲🇽 🇺🇸💔4🇵🇸1 year ago

@BioLayne I'm sorry but I believe that this guy is bought and paid for by the pharmaceutical and agricultural industry. He's going to be proven wrong just like the rest of the doctors who said smoking was healthy. What is natural is always best It doesn't produce cancer And autism

Colorado Mac's profile picture
Colorado Mac1 year ago

@BioLayne Old Coke recipe or bust. I think there’s a reason why people got so much done back in the day.

YoungGrandpa's profile picture
YoungGrandpa1 year ago

@BioLayne Sadly, he’s right. Cane sugar is just a sly less powerful nuclear bomb on your health than hfcs. It’ll be more than compensated for by increased soda intake.

Beau Hightower's profile picture
Beau Hightower1 year ago

He's right 🤷‍♂️

Related Videos

A real scientific study onto Coca-Cola found that Mexican Coke is a lie. It showed there is no real cane sugar “In 2010, a group of legit scientists get together to do a legitimate experiment for a legitimate science journal, and they want to test soft drinks including Coca-Cola. They want to know what sorts of sweetener are being used for each and how much of that sweetener is in each of them. So they gather a bunch of soft drinks including a Mexican Coca-Cola and an American Coca-Cola, and do all of their testing. What they find is that the Mexican Coca-Cola actually has no sucrose in it, meaning sugar. All they find in this is glucose and fructose, the elements that are used to build high fructose corn syrup. — They found no sugar. They only found the elements for high fructose corn syrup” Okay this sounds really crazy, so I looked into what’s actually happening Coke is highly acidic with phosphoric acid. Sucrose, which is cane sugar, hydrolyzes (breaks down) very quickly in acidic conditions into glucose + fructose By the time the bottle reaches you, especially after shipping, storage, and sitting on shelves, most or all of the sucrose has already inverted That’s why the study found almost zero intact sucrose Recent lab tests confirmed Mexican Coke starts with cane sugar but ends up with ~97% inverted by the time it’s tested So you are literally paying more for nothing So it’s technically not a lie, but it’s also incredibly misleading too

Wall Street Apes

214,319 views • 5 months ago