It's not just dubious it's wrong. Gluten is a protein, not a carb.

And to say legumes are bad when they are actually by far the best kind of carb you can eat is nuts. (Nuts are good too.)

Most people think bread is a carb, which there are many carbs coming from it - you also get gluten in that mix. You're right that it is a protein [gluten] and not a carb but this is a classic example of an unhelpful HN comment thread where pedanticism is slowly taking over unless my writing has the quality of oral debate speech followed by scientific citations.

Bread is a carb and a protein, obviously.

You think you were helpful and I am not because you believe what you say. But you have not stopped to consider that perhaps you are simply wrong and I am calling you out on it.

Your problem is that you wrote something wrong - doubly wrong. You wrote that gluten is a carb, and that it's bad for you. But not only is it not a carb, it's also not bad for you unless you are sensitive to it. Wheat is what took humanity from weak scattered encampments to full civilizations, it's not called the staff of life for nothing.

And when you added the legumes are bad for you, all doubt I had if perhaps you were right vanished.

I never said you weren't helpful! I think you're being pedantic - asking for sources on everything! If you ask for a scientific opinion on why something is bad or not for you; you can come up with sources for both sides!

I'm telling you straight up, STOP being pedantic! This is a discussion forum, not a scientific peer-review!

"...all doubt I had if perhaps you were right vanished." who the hell wants to even have a reasoned conversation with you? I sure don't - I'm willing to be educated or have my mind changed but now you're both being pedantic and throwing insulting sentences into the mix COMPLETELY throwing out my desire to be educated BY YOU.

Fuck off. You're an example of what's wrong with Hacker News IMHO - this used to be a great place for conversation but its devolved heavily into a hostile discussion environment.

I asked for sources? Are you confusing me for other people who replied?

And I never said anything even remotely pedantic. (Thinking gluten is a carb is not pedantic - it's wrong.)

You have been told you were wrong from a whole bunch of different people, but somehow decided they were all me. It's interesting to speculate on why you did that. A mental defense against being told you were wrong perhaps?

It's time for you to go restart your eduction on this matter from scratch - and not from me.

I'm glad you're so skeptical but honestly no, I do not have citations, nor do I have the time to find the original source s that provided that information to me many years ago.

I hope you learn from this thread. Because that source was wrong, and you need to update your beliefs.

HFCS and sugar are almost identical - both are about half fructose and half glucose. I don't think one is significantly worse than the other.

Sucrose (sugar) is a glucose bonded to a fructose.

HFCS is a solution of unbonded fructose and glucose. The most common HFCS is 45% glucose / 55% fructose.

HFCS may be worse for you if fructose is worse for you. That said, the concentrations aren't that much different.

The bond in sucrose makes little difference. We've evolved to break that bond very easily. Since the internet tends to be a big fan of Lustig's sugar video, can I just cite him as saying they're the same?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sucrose#Metabolism_of_sucrose

I've seen the video. I made no claims that the bond between the sugars in sucrose made a different. I was mostly attempting to explain the difference.

> HFCS may be worse for you if fructose is worse for you. That said, the concentrations aren't that much different.

I'm not going to dig out the citations (because I'm not sure where I'd find them) but I'm pretty certain I read recently in a credible source:

* Fructose is worse for you

* ... but HFCS and sugar contain similar amounts

* HFCS is really bad for you

* ... but no worse for you than sugar (which is also really bad for you)

Maybe 'not by much,' but the difference is that sucrose as a 50/50 split of fructose-glucose, and HFCS has a 55/45 split. So if Fructose is bad for you, then HFCS has a higher concentration than sucrose (though only a 5% difference).