New doughnut taste. What's up with that??!!

the rocketry show
SilicdyneTRF
The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
ScrapDaddy said:
You guys have got to be kiddin me HFCS Is da bomb! :hot:
Click to expand...

HFCS tastes funny.

Don't get me wrong, I like Mountain Dew, Pepsi, Coke, etc when they're made with HFCS, but I like them much more with good old sucrose.
 
There is an interesting explanation in Ron Paul's book Revolution on how HFCS came to replace sucrose in American foods, and some interesting revelations about it in the documentary King Corn.

I find the idea that a Donut Bacon Cheeseburger even exists simply disgusting, let alone the idea of eating one. And I'm one of those people who can't figure out what the big to-do over Krispy Kreme is all about . . . yeck!!
 
And I have a 12 pack of Mug Rootbeer chillin' in the 'fridge:D ...made with aged vanilla....aaannnndd other stuff....
 
RimfireJim said:
There is an interesting explanation in Ron Paul's book Revolution on how HFCS came to replace sucrose in American foods, and some interesting revelations about it in the documentary King Corn.

I find the idea that a Donut Bacon Cheeseburger even exists simply disgusting, let alone the idea of eating one. And I'm one of those people who can't figure out what the big to-do over Krispy Kreme is all about . . . yeck!!
Click to expand...

Yeah... long story short HFCS was big agribiz's 'value added' solution to the question of what to do with all those big corn surplus's back in the 80's after the gov't set aside programs started phasing out... get TONS of cheap corn, chemically react it to make HFCS, drive the sugar producers out of business with railroad car loads of cheaper stuff and sell the byproducts for livestock feed. Archer Daniels Midland and Staley's (among others) made a FORTUNE in the process.

I prefer the taste of REAL cane sugar over HFCS-- HFCS is basically an 'artificial' sweetner when it comes down to it, and a poor one at that. Real cane sugar is just that-- REAL... it tastes better IMHO. Despite FDA's assertions otherwise, (since FDA is basically bought and paid for and in big agribiz's hip pocket anyway) I still believe that HFCS is worse for your health than cane sugar. They'd never say it even if they had the proof-- too much money to be made on HFCS!

It's interesting how the Sugar Compact has restricted the sugar industry over the last century or so... basically all the sugar producing countries agreed to 'quotas' that divvied up the production among them, which they agreed not to exceed (sorta like OPEC, which basically got the idea from the Sugar Compact). By preventing unrestricted production of any one country trying to 'corner the market' and thus prevent driving sugar prices down to NOTHING, they preserved the industry, but opened the door to competition as well.

When you look at Brazil, they grow all the sugar cane they can possibly produce. The sugar mills down there have a "Y" valve in the final sugar output slurry line. One side of the "Y" goes to sugar drier and granulator, then to the storage bins and bagging machinery for "food sugar". Of course they're only allowed to produce so much of that, according to their sugar compact quota allotment. So most of the time the valve is turned to the other side of the "Y" and the sugar slurry goes straight into fermenter tanks, is mixed with yeast, and allowed to ferment. Pure sugar then ferments into pure ethanol, ready to be distilled and filtered for automotive fuel. So Brazil imports virtually NO forien oil and supports their ag industry at the same time, with the US continues to piddle about with corn ethanol, which is HORRIBLY inefficient. This continues because, you guessed it, ADM and other big agribiz has BILLIONS invested in grain handling infrastructure, ethanol plants, etc. and is leveraging that investment, no matter how ultimately inefficient it is...

Corn ethanol is SO inefficient because it takes 4 quarts of oil products (diesel fuel, lubricants, farm chemicals, and chemical fertilizers) to produce 5 quarts of ethanol. Cane sugar, on the other hand, only requires 1 quart of oil products to produce 3 quarts of ethanol, so you triple your oil investment, versus corn ethanol which only increases you oil investment by 20%. I laugh like crazy when these touchy-feely big agribiz commercials come on touting how we'll replace all our oil and gas with ethanol... to replace all the oil we import with ethanol would require us to IMPORT FOUR TIMES AS MUCH AS WE DO NOW JUST TO GROW THE CORN!!! How stupid is that???

This area of SE TX (Sugarland, near Houston) used to be called Sugarland because most of the area from Richmond north to Katy and beyond were sugarcane fields back in the early 20th century. Imperial Sugar in Sugarland was one of the biggest sugar plants in the world. The bottom fell out and the sugarcane market collapsed, and the farmers switched to rice and livestock. After World War II, the rice market contracted and most of the land was marginal anyway, so the land went basically back to weeds and a few cows. Now it's being paved over with houses. This country could EASILY be growing 500 times as much sugar cane as we are now-- the stuff is basically glorified grass-- and making some REAL inroads into sustainable 'green' fuels, but we don't... because the big agribiz wants to focus on grain ethanol, and cellulosic ethanol which will require a license from them to produce using their genetically engineered cellulose-converting microorganisms to produce. I've even seen research going on for farm-based basically hands free ethanol production using equipment similar to silage processing equipment-- no huge sugar mill and hauling hundreds of tons of cane to market required, which would further improve sugarcane and sweet sorghum's position in biofuel production. The equipment would use the same machinery basically used for row crop production now, same planters, cultivators, sprayers, etc. The only difference is at harvest, a harvester pulled by a tractor would cut the cane or sweet sorghum stalks, feed them into a stripper which removes the leaves and expels them, whilst feeding the stalks into a rolling press which would remove the juice from the stalks and collect it in a storage tank, and drop the stalks out the back. The stalks and leaves could then be gathered for animal fodder, or left to rot to replenish the soil. The sap from the tank could be pumped into large portable storage tanks on the ends of the field, then special wild yeasts added which aren't so sensitive to temperature as commercial yeasts are... (which the scientist conducting this experiment had identified and cultured, and upon which the whole program is based). No finicky temperature controls required to ferment the sap-- just pump it in the bulk tank and add the yeast slurry, and close the lid. After a fermentation period, another machine would come in-- a trailer mounted pump/filter/boiler/condensor distillation unit which would filter out the solids and scum from fermentation and then feed the alcohol slurry into a distillation unit which would boil it to vapor and distill off the alcohol and expel the waste water. The unit would then pump the finished ethanol into a secondary storage tank, which would then be emptied by a semi-truck tanker and hauled to the refinery for mixing with gasoline, or sold to the fuel distributor. The distillation unit would probably belong to a farmer's co-op and be 'rented' the farmers in a rotating basis to make the best use of the rather expensive unit and share costs. But this sits on the 'back burner' because all the REAL research money is going into cellulosic ethanol and corn ethanol, because THAT's where big agribiz stands to make a huge fortune! STUPID!

Back on topic, you know one reason why the V-2 rocket was considered such a wonder weapon?? Fuel was extremely scarce in the waning days of Nazi Germany due to our constant bombing campaign and the Soviet Union taking most of Germany's oil supply coming from Eastern Europe. Germany actually had to build huge refineries to make SYNTHETIC gasoline from coal to fuel their Panzers and fighter planes... which were of course major targets for bombing raids and incredibly expensive and limited in their production compared to regular oil-based refined gasoline. The fuel shortage became SO acute, that the Me-262 jet fighter, the most advanced aircraft in the world, was often seen being pulled out onto the runway by oxen, because there was no fuel available for the airport tractors and no fuel to waste on taxiing the aircraft out to the runway! SO, any weapons that could use 'alternative fuels' like diesel, kerosene, or alcohol were in great demand! The Germans had experimented with diesel fuelled piston-engine bombers and found that the thinning air at altitude was more than even the best superchargers and turbochargers could cope with-- performance just fell off to nothing with so little air for compression ignition (diesel) engines to use at altitude, and so were abandoned. The Me-262 used kerosene as jet engine fuel, which was a by-product of refining gasoline and in greater supply, which was a boon for building the otherwise expensive and fuel-hungry jets. The Me-163 Komet rocket powered fighter used C-stoff and T-stoff, which was basically rocket grade high test hydrogen peroxide (T-stoff) and a mixture of methanol and hydrazine (C-stoff) which ignited hypergolically in a small rocket engine. The stuff was terribly unstable, and could blow up from excessive shocks on rough landings, or ignite from fuel line leaks, and it was EXTREMELY corrosive, poisonous, and flammable. The V-2, on the other hand, while extremely complex and expensive to build, used liquid oxygen, readily obtained from air using special equipment, and ALCOHOL as fuel. The alcohol primarily came from fermented potatoes, which were fermented and distilled to make a sort of 'white lightning' moonshine ethanol to fuel the rockets. Potatoes could be easily and cheaply grown and were a 'renewable' resource that bombing did little to eliminate. Some V-2 Crews used to 'sample the rocket fuel' and get roaring drunk, so the SS started putting a 'barf agent' into the rocket fuel to prevent the crews from drinking the alcohol rocket fuel.

Bet ya didn't know that! OL JR :)
 
To be completely fair, fructose is both natural and no less healthy for you than sucrose. Fructose is found in many fruits, and is common in several types of plants. I just don't like its taste as much. No fructose isn't particularly good for you, but neither is sucrose.
 
You know one of the strangest experiences I ever had with doughnuts was while living in Korea in '86.

It was my first overseas assignment and one day I found a DD up in Seoul. Never had them before because I grew up with Winchels. Anyhow, I asked for a couple of the jelly filled doughnuts. On my first bite I found out that my jelly filled down was filled alright, with bright red bean curd. YUCK!

Different tastes for different people.
 
cjl said:
To be completely fair, fructose is both natural and no less healthy for you than sucrose. Fructose is found in many fruits, and is common in several types of plants. I just don't like its taste as much. No fructose isn't particularly good for you, but neither is sucrose.
Click to expand...

Well, yeah, but it's not NATURAL fructose... they do some weird chemical tricks to get HFCS... and I don't like weird manmade chemical tricks in my food, especially when there is a 'natural' alternative...

Guess I'm funny that way... :) OL JR :)
 
billspad said:
This thread started out talking about donuts and is now back on topic talking about the V-2??
Click to expand...

LOL:) :D Well, it IS the ROCKETRY forum, not the donut forum... :duck:

Sometimes these threads take more turns and burns than a mosquito with a 3-motor C6-0 CHAD stage sticking out the back... :eyepop:

:pop: Later! OL JR :) :2:
 
luke strawwalker said:
Well, yeah, but it's not NATURAL fructose... they do some weird chemical tricks to get HFCS... and I don't like weird manmade chemical tricks in my food, especially when there is a 'natural' alternative...

Guess I'm funny that way... :) OL JR :)
Click to expand...

It's exactly the same chemical. It doesn't matter how its made.

(Oh, and arsenic is quite natural. That doesn't mean I want it in my food)
 
As far as HFCS, they use a man-made enzyme to convert corn starch into sugars. The soda companies save a penny a can using it.
You want anything to taste better? Use lard. It isn't that much worse for you, and at least your body knows what to do with it unlike partially hydrogenated vegetable oil. That stuff does not occur in nature. Like lots of things, enjoy lard in moderation.
 
We had a friend, Delight Weir, who made absolutely the best pie ever. Everyone raved about her pie crust and the same was true about her biscuits. No one could make pie crusts or biscuits as light and flakey as she did. We helped her bake one afternoon. The secret?





Lard.


Second choice, real butter. She said without fat, it just didn't work.
 
cjl said:
To be completely fair, fructose is both natural and no less healthy for you than sucrose. Fructose is found in many fruits, and is common in several types of plants. I just don't like its taste as much. No fructose isn't particularly good for you, but neither is sucrose.
Click to expand...
Actually, fructose is metabolized in the liver differently that sucrose and in that process inhibits glucose (blood sugar) metabolism. This can eventually result in the development of permanent insulin resistance (metabolic syndrome) which is not as damaging to the body as full-blown diabetes, but is definitely not good for it. In a common result of metabolic syndrome the affected individual stores in fat an inordinate amount of the calories they consume and, as a result, gains weight and finds it very difficult to lose weight even after their caloric intake is reduced. It doesn't help that even when dieting virtually everything they eat that has any sweetener in it at all is most likely sweetened with fructose made from corn.

So, HFCS is less healthy for you than sucrose and yet it is in most everything you eat. Why? The government has greatly inflated the price of sucrose in this country through steep protective tariffs while catering to the corn products industry. As a result, food processors use the artificially much cheaper HFCS.
 
Winston said:
Actually, fructose is metabolized in the liver differently that sucrose and in that process inhibits glucose (blood sugar) metabolism. This can eventually result in the development of permanent insulin resistance (metabolic syndrome) which is not as damaging to the body as full-blown diabetes, but is definitely not good for it. In a common result of metabolic syndrome the affected individual stores in fat an inordinate amount of the calories they consume and, as a result, gains weight and finds it very difficult to lose weight even after their caloric intake is reduced. It doesn't help that even when dieting virtually everything they eat that has any sweetener in it at all is most likely sweetened with fructose made from corn.

So, HFCS is less healthy for you than sucrose and yet it is in most everything you eat. Why? The government has greatly inflated the price of sucrose in this country through steep protective tariffs while catering to the corn products industry. As a result, food processors use the artificially much cheaper HFCS.
Click to expand...
Do you have a citation for that? If true, it's very interesting, but this is the first that I've heard of it.
 
cjl said:
Do you have a citation for that? If true, it's very interesting, but this is the first that I've heard of it.
Click to expand...
Bottom line is that we have far too much sugar in our diet. Large amounts of sucrose can cause problems, but the same amount of fructose is even worse for the reasons I outlined. And fructose is about all we in the US get thanks to government disruption of the free market.

One recent study on this topic although it's not solely about fructose:

https://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/2/1/5
 
Winston said:
Bottom line is that we have far too much sugar in our diet.
Click to expand...
This I absolutely agree with. Simply switching all HFCS to sucrose would not solve this problem, since we consume far too much sugar (of any kind).

Winston said:
Large amounts of sucrose can cause problems, but the same amount of fructose is even worse for the reasons I outlined. And fructose is about all we in the US get thanks to government disruption of the free market.

One recent study on this topic although it's not solely about fructose:

https://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/2/1/5
Click to expand...

Very interesting study. I've only had a chance to glance through it so far, but I definitely want to look at it in more detail when I have time.
 
Winston said:
Not donuts, but I just tried this ice cream flavor and it's fantastic:

https://dreyers.slowchurned.com/flavor.aspx?b=112&f=2676

Tastes just like vanilla ice cream on yellow cake with vanilla frosting.

Warning: Contains HFCS (like nearly everything else you eat).
Click to expand...

I like cake flavored ice cream in general. But I don't like Edy's/Dryer's slow-churned ice cream (I haven't tried cake flavor, though). Last time I tried their slow-churned stuff, it had a dense, almost rubbery or chewy consistency.

Adding to the ongoing food rant, what's with all the sodium in food these days? I had a Kroger bagel (I would hardly consider these real "bagels" but that's not the point. Buying them wasn't my choice, and it is hard to get a decent bagel around here), and I noticed it had over 400mg of sodium.
Some other excessively salty foods I've noticed recently:
Domino's new pizza, 530mg/slice. Tastes like eating a salt lick
Eggo waffles (I eat these every day for breakfast), 430mg/serving
A single large slice of the new Dominos pizza has 530mg, and I usually eat 2-3 slices of pizza. It tasted like eating a salt lick.
 
m85476585 said:
Adding to the ongoing food rant, what's with all the sodium in food these days?
Click to expand...
It's the cheapest way for manufacturers to make their food taste "better". Salt is cheaper than flavorings and spices. I don't know the biochemistry, but salt "enhances" other flavors inherent in the food. Maybe because it is an electrolyte? What I do know is that the food my wife and I prepare at home has far less salt in it than commercial foods, and that whenever we eat out we're dying of thirst about an hour later.
 
luke strawwalker said:
Yeah... long story short HFCS was big agribiz's 'value added' solution to the question of what to do with all those big corn surplus's back in the 80's after the gov't set aside programs started phasing out...
<major snip>
Click to expand...
That was a "long story short??? :D

luke strawwalker said:
Bet ya didn't know that!
Click to expand...
What I want to know is how you find time to write so much! ;) Keep it up, though - it's good reading.
 
Last edited:
RimfireJim said:
It's the cheapest way for manufacturers to make their food taste "better". Salt is cheaper than flavorings and spices. I don't know the biochemistry, but salt "enhances" other flavors
Click to expand...
Which brings up MSG. I miss MSG. Junk science years ago gave MSG a undeserved bad reputation. More recent double blind studies has shown that MSG DOES NOT cause migraine headaches and other issues. Still the myth persists.
 
Just eat foods that are naturally rich in glutimate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glutamic_acid_(flavor)#Concentration_in_foods

It's interesting that hydrolyzed protein is used as a replacement for MSG. I'm allergic to soy protein (but not soybean oil, soy sauce, or soy lecithin, thankfully), and it is added to a lot of processed foods, especially soups. As a result, there are very few canned soups that I can eat.
 
Very few donut shops actually make donuts the old way.

Dunkin Donuts changed a lot during the '60s and cheapened the manufacturing process several times since then. Krispy Cremes aren't traditional donuts either.

In the Northeast, many good donut shop stopped making their own donuts in the late 80's and early 90s because they got clobbered in cost by Dunkin Donuts. Aside from Kanes, which is literally around the corner from my house, there are only a few traditional donut shops left in the Boston area. There was on traditional wholesale supplier who delivered to the traditional donut shops that stopped making their own for economic reasons, but he retired 5 years ago when he turned 70, and many of his customers closes their doors when they couldn't get traditional donuts and Walgreens and CVS paid alot of money for their premere locations.

Now you can get drugs on almost any corner, but good local donut and breakfast shops are disappearing.

Bob
 
m85476585 said:
I like cake flavored ice cream in general. But I don't like Edy's/Dryer's slow-churned ice cream (I haven't tried cake flavor, though). Last time I tried their slow-churned stuff, it had a dense, almost rubbery or chewy consistency.
Click to expand...
I'd call it dense and creamy, not rubbery but your opinion might be different. And for an ice cream with 1/2 the normal amount of fat and only 2/3 the calories it's amazing. Doesn't seem like there's any fat at all missing. It's just as good as a good, very high fat ice cream and the flavor is great.
 
cjl said:
It's exactly the same chemical. It doesn't matter how its made.

(Oh, and arsenic is quite natural. That doesn't mean I want it in my food)
Click to expand...

Yeah... I sprayed arsenic (DSMA, MSMA) on cotton for years-- that stuff didn't worry me half as much as most of the other stuff I handled...

Difference in perspective... OL JR :)
 

Latest posts

Back
Top