Sugar is bad, very bad.

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Since when is alcohol a poison? And Gonand, your post is scary in how far into the conspiracy theory-land it actually traverses.

It's clearly just crazy to think that Coca-cola dumps a lot of sugar and salt into their sodas to make people want to drink a lot them. And the FDA hiring folks straight from the companies they regulate? Unheard of!

Is this real life? People, you have an internet connection, WTF do you use it for? It's not like this info isn't plastered all over the damn web. And alcohol has been a poison since about forever ago.

 

[surfsatwerk]

Since when is alcohol a poison? And Gonand, your post is scary in how far into the conspiracy theory-land it actually traverses.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol

Other alcohols are substantially more poisonous than ethanol,

 

[shortylickens]

I'm in BIO 101 right now. Chances are I've already heard it, or am going to hear it soon.

And it doesnt matter. Knowledge does not equate to good decisions unless people can overcome their addictions. Speaking as a fatty, I know first hand how addicting sugar is. And I learned about all the bad things it does in excess way back in grade school.
It doesnt matter.
I had to fight against the addiction and get into exercise and stuff.

 

[Nintendesert]

Oh I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about the common use of alcohol meaning ethanol and I'd hardly call it a "poison." Even in a metabolized form the toxicity is exceedingly limited compared to actual substances classified as poisons.

 

[SociallyChallenged]

I'm in BIO 101 right now. Chances are I've already heard it, or am going to hear it soon.

And it doesnt matter. Knowledge does not equate to good decisions unless people can overcome their addictions. Speaking as a fatty, I know first hand how addicting sugar is. And I learned about all the bad things it does in excess way back in grade school.
It doesnt matter.
I had to fight against the addiction and get into exercise and stuff.

...How does being in a biology class (probably not specific to human physiology or nutrition) make you likely to have heard this before?

Knowledge frequently gives people power to overcome addictions. That's part of the point. On top of that, people who don't have addictions, but eat sugar just for the hell of it can cut it out and improve their health.

 

[shortylickens]

...How does being in a biology class (probably not specific to human physiology or nutrition) make you likely to have heard this before?

Knowledge frequently gives people power to overcome addictions. That's part of the point. On top of that, people who don't have addictions, but eat sugar just for the hell of it can cut it out and improve their health.

"what happens when your body attempts to absorb fructose and sucrose. "

And no, we all have access to literally a world of information at our fingertips, and people make more bad decisions than ever, Knowledge cant make you care, it has to strike an emotion to actually stimulate an action.

By contrast, a person who cares a great deal will seek to correct any ignorance they have.

 

[Kipper]

Frutcose is every bit a poison as alcohol. His whole presentation backs that up. It's not alarmist, it's fact backed by chemistry.

And it's not a conspiracy theory that A) the FDA is run by the very interests it's supposed to regulate and B) these food corporations have chemists whose entire job is engineering products people want to consume, and tweaking them so they want to consume more. What is it with people dismissing acting in one's own economic interest as conspiracy theory?

Unbelievable. Why do you insist on harping on about a minor qualm I had with the presentation written tacked onto the end of one of my post? I found him sensationalist. That is all.

I'll just also point out that it seems a bit naive to think that the product is the only thing that matters when it comes to consumption. Advertising and marketing are a HUGE part, and it's no surprise that the most heavily marketed products are the most consumed products. If kale was as heavily marketed as Coca-cola, I'm certain we would see kale sales shoot through the roof. Unfortunately, you can't really process kale in a way to ensure a healthy profit like you can commodity crops like corn and wheat.

Where food scientists come into the picture - the "chemists" in your theory - is really to tweak the palatability and quality of the product, not to engineer them out of the blue. You make it out as if there are people in a lab trying to see what soda formulations are most addictive. Sheesh, human behavior is a lot more complicated than that. Give us some credit.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

So it's just by accident that soda, fast food, whatever sugar-laden food you pick, tastes so good to so many people that they consume it to the point where it makes them fat and sick. It's all just marketing and has nothing to do with the producer making the product itself more appealing to the customer in an attempt to consume more and maximize their profits. Gotcha. I mean Hell, it's not like they ever did something like put cocaine in soda.

And as far as the chemists not creating the food, umm, that's EXACTLY what they do. Do you think a baker invented HFCS? Or that that they are picking twinkies off of trees? Or it's by chance all this junk food never decomposes? Or that the ingredient lists read like a freaking chemistry set?

 

[HendrixFan]

I'll just also point out that it seems a bit naive to think that the product is the only thing that matters when it comes to consumption. Advertising and marketing are a HUGE part, and it's no surprise that the most heavily marketed products are the most consumed products. If kale was as heavily marketed as Coca-cola, I'm certain we would see kale sales shoot through the roof. Unfortunately, you can't really process kale in a way to ensure a healthy profit like you can commodity crops like corn and wheat.
.

Coca-Cola couldn't sell New Coke regardless of the advertising they pumped into it, and the fact that the pulled Coca-Cola from the shelves. Advertising is important, but is in no way related to the discussion of excess sugar (especially fructose) being bad for people. Advertising is one of the weapons they are trying to use to save HFCS, since the HFCS lobby is trying to change its name to Corn Sugar. When you have products touting "No HFCS" as a positive and you make HFCS you are in a bad place.

Second, without considering dose, concluding that fructose induces all of these metabolic changes, this seems to be an even bigger assumption to me. The way he talks about it you'd think that eating 1 g of fructose would have the same effect as 500 g...which in my understanding is exactly the gripe that Alan Aragon makes. To use Dr. Lustig's alcohol analogy, Aragon's point is that individual differences make a huge impact with regard to the metabolic effects of alcohol, and fructose is no different. Too much is too much - and that's true of ANYTHING.

It has been a few weeks since I watched the video, but I do recall a fair amount of time at the beginning being spent showing the huge increase in sugar consumption and fructose consumption. That was actually what kept me watching the video instead of turning it off.

 

[Kipper]

So it's just by accident that soda, fast food, whatever sugar-laden food you pick, tastes so good to so many people that they consume it to the point where it makes them fat and sick. It's all just marketing and has nothing to do with the producer making the product itself more appealing to the customer in an attempt to consume more and maximize their profits. Gotcha. I mean Hell, it's not like they ever did something like put cocaine in soda.

You really don't read my posts, do you? I said marketing plays a major role, not that it's everything. If the product is rubbish, all the marketing in the world will not do very much. But you apparently believe that a good product is all that it takes...or that's at least how you have presented your conspiracy theory views so far.

And as far as the chemists not creating the food, umm, that's EXACTLY what they do. Do you think a baker invented HFCS? Or that that they are picking twinkies off of trees? Or it's by chance all this junk food never decomposes? Or that the ingredient lists read like a freaking chemistry set?

Fair enough, I'm sure one food scientist or another has come up with a different flavor for Doritos or whatever. But your apparent belief that there are people lurking in secret labs somewhere coming up with addictive products is just...absurd. What you see as a dark, corporate conspiracy I simply see as a economic manifestation of companies jockeying for a larger share of what is a finite marketplace.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

No, I believe a good tasting product is necessary for marketing to be successful. Bad tasting food is probably the one thing on this world you can't market around, so no one bothers. That's why the most consumed foods are the most advertised. They are designed to taste good and people like eating things that taste good.

It's not secret. They aren't lurking. It's what they overtly do. Their R&D departments aren't hidden in some secret bunker. They aren't secretly kidnapping people for study panels. It's any corporation's economic incentive to make their product as appealing to their customers as they can. Maximize sales, maximize revenue. It IS simply an economic manifestation. I don't see how you can agree on this point, then deny they are doing it. Look at caffeine in sodas.

 

[M0oG0oGaiPan]

I can't wait for someone to invent tomacco.

 

[polarmystery]

Oh yeah man, it's totally different :awe:

 

[brikis98]

I can't wait for someone to invent tomacco.

Someone already did.