Sugar: The Bitter Truth

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Originally posted by: AyashiKaibutsu

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
A point this video makes is sugar isn't sugar. Fructose specifically does bad things that other sugars do not. If we were spiking everything with dextrose as opposed to fructose for example, many of our "sugar" problems wouldn't be problems.

normal and natural sugars is a mixture of fructose and glucose are they not?

Sucrose is a mixture of fructose and glucose. There are other sugars that are not fructose.

 

[crownjules]

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

Originally posted by: AyashiKaibutsu

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
A point this video makes is sugar isn't sugar. Fructose specifically does bad things that other sugars do not. If we were spiking everything with dextrose as opposed to fructose for example, many of our "sugar" problems wouldn't be problems.

normal and natural sugars is a mixture of fructose and glucose are they not?

Sucrose is a mixture of fructose and glucose. There are other sugars that are not fructose.

I believe Ayashi was trying to point out that both glucose and fructose are naturally occuring sugars. Fructose is fruit sugar - every piece of fruit you eat contains it. Are you suddenly going to stop eating fruits now? No because they also contain many beneficial vitamins and minerals. Just like large amounts of alcohol can devastate your system but recent studies suggest moderate amounts of beer and wine can actually be good for you. Like most things in life, in moderation they are fine but taken in excess they can be harmful.

Though I'm not saying that it's not a problem that the vast majority of processed foods contain HFCS.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

He just got through saying that natural != healthy. And clearly from the video he's right. Fructose in fruit isn't the problem.

 

[SociallyChallenged]

Originally posted by: crownjules

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

Originally posted by: AyashiKaibutsu

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
A point this video makes is sugar isn't sugar. Fructose specifically does bad things that other sugars do not. If we were spiking everything with dextrose as opposed to fructose for example, many of our "sugar" problems wouldn't be problems.

normal and natural sugars is a mixture of fructose and glucose are they not?

Sucrose is a mixture of fructose and glucose. There are other sugars that are not fructose.

I believe Ayashi was trying to point out that both glucose and fructose are naturally occuring sugars. Fructose is fruit sugar - every piece of fruit you eat contains it. Are you suddenly going to stop eating fruits now? No because they also contain many beneficial vitamins and minerals. Just like large amounts of alcohol can devastate your system but recent studies suggest moderate amounts of beer and wine can actually be good for you. Like most things in life, in moderation they are fine but taken in excess they can be harmful.

Though I'm not saying that it's not a problem that the vast majority of processed foods contain HFCS.

If you watched the video, he states that it is not inherently fructose that is the bad thing. When he mentions fruit, he states that the fiber is what changes the rate at which it is process, which is a really big deal. However, when you process products to get a high fructose percentage and no fiber, that's when things get to be problematic. Things with normal sugar in them don't tend to have much fiber. Therefore they're just as bad. Poppy seeds are naturally occurring plant products. Process them and you get heroin. There is often a very different story to tell when the natural context is taken away.

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: AyashiKaibutsu

Originally posted by: Jeff7181

Originally posted by: TallBill
I thought that this was pretty much well known by now?

Edit - Not being an ass, I will probably watch it later. I know most people eat like shit.

The thing I found interesting was that the guy says fruit juices are bad... even all natural orange juice, for example. The reason being that you need fiber to balance out with the sucrose, which you'll get by eating an orange but not by drinking the juice unless there's a metric shitton of pulp in it.

Sugar is sugar, and many natural things are deadly; many unnatural things are very healthy. Natural is neither synonymous with nor a metric of healthy. People who drink 4 liters of fruit juice a day probably wouldn't be a whole lot better off than the people who drink 4 liters of soda a day; there's plenty of healthy people that drink a few glasses of soda a day.

One could argue that everything we have is natural, even plastic, because there's no way to get it without first finding something that was already here... naturally.

So you really have to look at what is meant by natural. Has it been processed or refined? If so, it's not natural for all intents and purposes. As SC pointed out, poppy seeds occur naturally... process them and you end up with a potent drug that is arguably less healthy than the seeds in their raw, unprocessed state.

So... while squeezing a natural fruit such as an orange results in orange juice, you don't necessarily have something natural. You won't find a puddle of orange juice bubbling up from the ground near an orange tree. Just like you won't find a sweet syrup dripping out of an ear of corn.

 

[Deeko]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181

So... while squeezing a natural fruit such as an orange results in orange juice, you don't necessarily have something natural. You won't find a puddle of orange juice bubbling up from the ground near an orange tree. Just like you won't find a sweet syrup dripping out of an ear of corn.

psh - speak for yourself. You're growing the wrong oranges, jerk.

 

[SociallyChallenged]

Originally posted by: Deeko

Originally posted by: Jeff7181

So... while squeezing a natural fruit such as an orange results in orange juice, you don't necessarily have something natural. You won't find a puddle of orange juice bubbling up from the ground near an orange tree. Just like you won't find a sweet syrup dripping out of an ear of corn.

psh - speak for yourself. You're growing the wrong oranges, jerk.

Tell me more. I would love a pulpy orange juice pond... mmmm. I could marinade the hell outta my steaks all the time!

 

[TallBill]

Just went grocery shopping tonight, no HFCS, and very very low sugars all around. Didn't have to change a lot, but lots of meats, beans, and grains with a few fruits veggies and dairy.

 

[SociallyChallenged]

Originally posted by: TallBill
Just went grocery shopping tonight, no HFCS, and very very low sugars all around. Didn't have to change a lot, but lots of meats, beans, and grains with a few fruits veggies and dairy.

Yeah, I have a very similar diet. Eat a fair amount of fruit and veggies and milk. Meat, beans, and oatmeal are staples. The only sugar I have is honey and that's only 30% fructose and I only use tiny, tiny amounts for dressing and such. Speaking of which, I'm eating this wonderful seared teriyaki tuna with kidney beans and a spinach salad with a honey and vinegar dressing plus raw sunflower seeds. Yum. Needs some milk though.

 

[KingGheedora]

After watching this and some superficial googling of fructose, I am also cutting as much sugar/HFCS out of my diet now. The main things I ate that had these were soda and kashi granola bars, after recently cleaning my diet back up. Switched to coke zero and sprite zero since I really like soda, and will no longer get the granola bars now that the pack I had is out. As things progress i can see myself going more and more towards a paleo style diet.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: TallBill
Just went grocery shopping tonight, no HFCS, and very very low sugars all around. Didn't have to change a lot, but lots of meats, beans, and grains with a few fruits veggies and dairy.

I find myself consistently shocked at what people at the commissary have in their baskets. Most of the time they're literally full of junk food. That seems to be all they eat. On top of that, I made the mistake of going to the commissary on Sept 1st. I had NO idea that so many soldiers were living paycheck to paycheck in such a manner that they're running out of food every 2 weeks. Perhaps if they weren't buying so many processed foods their grocery dollars would go further.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: SociallyChallenged
I just finally got around to watching this lecture. To be perfectly honest, I'm amazed that it has taken 30 years for someone, let alone a doctor, to explain why sugar and specifically fructose is bad for your health. All the pathways listed are required to be known by undergraduate nutrition majors. I'm an exercise biology major and have taken several biochem classes on top of one upper division nutrition class and I understood exactly where he was going. Nobody put this together before? Apparently people did as the lecturer talks about Pure, White and Deadly. I don't believe he had the evidence that we now do though. Why does the FDA continue to ignore these things?

I completely agree with what he says. My nutrition lecturer was actually doing research on this and found that fructose was terrible for people and that they gained weight, had health problems, etc much more readily than others. If you mix this along with what The Zone Diet author Barry Sears states, then the following is what is required for optimal health: high fiber, no refined sugar, no refined vegetable oils, balance of omega-3s and omega-6s. To be perfectly honest, if I could afford it, I would probably go paleolithic. However, watching this lecture and recently watching Dr. Sears talk on inflammation and the Zone, I feel it is in my best interests to start making some changes. Perhaps the first step is limiting my sweets. Perhaps a small treat once a week reduced to once every two weeks would do. I don't know, but what I'm saying is that if you wanna be healthy and perform well, popular nutrition will not really be helping you.

don't tell amused about this... she'll just sit there and call you names until you realize it's not worth your time to even try talking with her.

 

[SociallyChallenged]

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: SociallyChallenged
I just finally got around to watching this lecture. To be perfectly honest, I'm amazed that it has taken 30 years for someone, let alone a doctor, to explain why sugar and specifically fructose is bad for your health. All the pathways listed are required to be known by undergraduate nutrition majors. I'm an exercise biology major and have taken several biochem classes on top of one upper division nutrition class and I understood exactly where he was going. Nobody put this together before? Apparently people did as the lecturer talks about Pure, White and Deadly. I don't believe he had the evidence that we now do though. Why does the FDA continue to ignore these things?

I completely agree with what he says. My nutrition lecturer was actually doing research on this and found that fructose was terrible for people and that they gained weight, had health problems, etc much more readily than others. If you mix this along with what The Zone Diet author Barry Sears states, then the following is what is required for optimal health: high fiber, no refined sugar, no refined vegetable oils, balance of omega-3s and omega-6s. To be perfectly honest, if I could afford it, I would probably go paleolithic. However, watching this lecture and recently watching Dr. Sears talk on inflammation and the Zone, I feel it is in my best interests to start making some changes. Perhaps the first step is limiting my sweets. Perhaps a small treat once a week reduced to once every two weeks would do. I don't know, but what I'm saying is that if you wanna be healthy and perform well, popular nutrition will not really be helping you.

don't tell amused about this... she'll just sit there and call you names until you realize it's not worth your time to even try talking with her.

Why? What does Amused think? And about which part specifically?

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: SociallyChallenged

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: SociallyChallenged
I just finally got around to watching this lecture. To be perfectly honest, I'm amazed that it has taken 30 years for someone, let alone a doctor, to explain why sugar and specifically fructose is bad for your health. All the pathways listed are required to be known by undergraduate nutrition majors. I'm an exercise biology major and have taken several biochem classes on top of one upper division nutrition class and I understood exactly where he was going. Nobody put this together before? Apparently people did as the lecturer talks about Pure, White and Deadly. I don't believe he had the evidence that we now do though. Why does the FDA continue to ignore these things?

I completely agree with what he says. My nutrition lecturer was actually doing research on this and found that fructose was terrible for people and that they gained weight, had health problems, etc much more readily than others. If you mix this along with what The Zone Diet author Barry Sears states, then the following is what is required for optimal health: high fiber, no refined sugar, no refined vegetable oils, balance of omega-3s and omega-6s. To be perfectly honest, if I could afford it, I would probably go paleolithic. However, watching this lecture and recently watching Dr. Sears talk on inflammation and the Zone, I feel it is in my best interests to start making some changes. Perhaps the first step is limiting my sweets. Perhaps a small treat once a week reduced to once every two weeks would do. I don't know, but what I'm saying is that if you wanna be healthy and perform well, popular nutrition will not really be helping you.

don't tell amused about this... she'll just sit there and call you names until you realize it's not worth your time to even try talking with her.

Why? What does Amused think? And about which part specifically?

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...id=38&threadid=2334333

 

[KingGheedora]

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: SociallyChallenged
I just finally got around to watching this lecture. To be perfectly honest, I'm amazed that it has taken 30 years for someone, let alone a doctor, to explain why sugar and specifically fructose is bad for your health. All the pathways listed are required to be known by undergraduate nutrition majors. I'm an exercise biology major and have taken several biochem classes on top of one upper division nutrition class and I understood exactly where he was going. Nobody put this together before? Apparently people did as the lecturer talks about Pure, White and Deadly. I don't believe he had the evidence that we now do though. Why does the FDA continue to ignore these things?

I completely agree with what he says. My nutrition lecturer was actually doing research on this and found that fructose was terrible for people and that they gained weight, had health problems, etc much more readily than others. If you mix this along with what The Zone Diet author Barry Sears states, then the following is what is required for optimal health: high fiber, no refined sugar, no refined vegetable oils, balance of omega-3s and omega-6s. To be perfectly honest, if I could afford it, I would probably go paleolithic. However, watching this lecture and recently watching Dr. Sears talk on inflammation and the Zone, I feel it is in my best interests to start making some changes. Perhaps the first step is limiting my sweets. Perhaps a small treat once a week reduced to once every two weeks would do. I don't know, but what I'm saying is that if you wanna be healthy and perform well, popular nutrition will not really be helping you.

don't tell amused about this... she'll just sit there and call you names until you realize it's not worth your time to even try talking with her.

If I recall, I linked to this thread yesterday from a thread in OT where you and amused were arguing over HFCS vs. table sugar. You claimed HFCS was worse for people than sugar, and Amused was arguing against you. Amused said that HFCS is no worse than sugar, which is supported by the link in the OP. What you just quoted here that SociallyChallenged said does not go against what Amused said at all, if anything SC would support Amused point. Everything in this thread supports what Amused was saying and goes against what you were saying.

I dunno, I'm kind of confused by this post unless you are referring to somethings Amused said in a thread other than this one: http://forums.anandtech.com/me...AR_FORUMVIEWTMP=Linear

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: KingGheedora

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: SociallyChallenged
I just finally got around to watching this lecture. To be perfectly honest, I'm amazed that it has taken 30 years for someone, let alone a doctor, to explain why sugar and specifically fructose is bad for your health. All the pathways listed are required to be known by undergraduate nutrition majors. I'm an exercise biology major and have taken several biochem classes on top of one upper division nutrition class and I understood exactly where he was going. Nobody put this together before? Apparently people did as the lecturer talks about Pure, White and Deadly. I don't believe he had the evidence that we now do though. Why does the FDA continue to ignore these things?

I completely agree with what he says. My nutrition lecturer was actually doing research on this and found that fructose was terrible for people and that they gained weight, had health problems, etc much more readily than others. If you mix this along with what The Zone Diet author Barry Sears states, then the following is what is required for optimal health: high fiber, no refined sugar, no refined vegetable oils, balance of omega-3s and omega-6s. To be perfectly honest, if I could afford it, I would probably go paleolithic. However, watching this lecture and recently watching Dr. Sears talk on inflammation and the Zone, I feel it is in my best interests to start making some changes. Perhaps the first step is limiting my sweets. Perhaps a small treat once a week reduced to once every two weeks would do. I don't know, but what I'm saying is that if you wanna be healthy and perform well, popular nutrition will not really be helping you.

don't tell amused about this... she'll just sit there and call you names until you realize it's not worth your time to even try talking with her.

If I recall, I linked to this thread yesterday from a thread in OT where you and amused were arguing over HFCS vs. table sugar. You claimed HFCS was worse for people than sugar, and Amused was arguing against you. Amused said that HFCS is no worse than sugar, which is supported by the link in the OP. What you just quoted here that SociallyChallenged said does not go against what Amused said at all, if anything SC would support Amused point. Everything in this thread supports what Amused was saying and goes against what you were saying.

I dunno, I'm kind of confused by this post unless you are referring to somethings Amused said in a thread other than this one: http://forums.anandtech.com/me...AR_FORUMVIEWTMP=Linear

hfcs = 55% fructose
sugar = 50% fructose (sans insulin resistance)
honey = ~35-40% fructose

amused said that the difference between hfcs doesn't matter because it's the same as sugar. it's not. yes, biochemically, it breaks down the same as sugar because it's fructose and glucose, but the way your body reacts to it is different. by the way, next time you see a large hfcs study, read up on who funded the study. most of the time, it's corn refiners association. that's like me pulling out a study funded by the american chiropractic association to prove to you chiropractic is helpful for chronic low back pain.

oh, by the way, i'm not eitis. i'm eits. eits. e, i, t, s. explosions in the sky. eits.

🙂

 

[SociallyChallenged]

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: KingGheedora

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: SociallyChallenged
I just finally got around to watching this lecture. To be perfectly honest, I'm amazed that it has taken 30 years for someone, let alone a doctor, to explain why sugar and specifically fructose is bad for your health. All the pathways listed are required to be known by undergraduate nutrition majors. I'm an exercise biology major and have taken several biochem classes on top of one upper division nutrition class and I understood exactly where he was going. Nobody put this together before? Apparently people did as the lecturer talks about Pure, White and Deadly. I don't believe he had the evidence that we now do though. Why does the FDA continue to ignore these things?

I completely agree with what he says. My nutrition lecturer was actually doing research on this and found that fructose was terrible for people and that they gained weight, had health problems, etc much more readily than others. If you mix this along with what The Zone Diet author Barry Sears states, then the following is what is required for optimal health: high fiber, no refined sugar, no refined vegetable oils, balance of omega-3s and omega-6s. To be perfectly honest, if I could afford it, I would probably go paleolithic. However, watching this lecture and recently watching Dr. Sears talk on inflammation and the Zone, I feel it is in my best interests to start making some changes. Perhaps the first step is limiting my sweets. Perhaps a small treat once a week reduced to once every two weeks would do. I don't know, but what I'm saying is that if you wanna be healthy and perform well, popular nutrition will not really be helping you.

don't tell amused about this... she'll just sit there and call you names until you realize it's not worth your time to even try talking with her.

If I recall, I linked to this thread yesterday from a thread in OT where you and amused were arguing over HFCS vs. table sugar. You claimed HFCS was worse for people than sugar, and Amused was arguing against you. Amused said that HFCS is no worse than sugar, which is supported by the link in the OP. What you just quoted here that SociallyChallenged said does not go against what Amused said at all, if anything SC would support Amused point. Everything in this thread supports what Amused was saying and goes against what you were saying.

I dunno, I'm kind of confused by this post unless you are referring to somethings Amused said in a thread other than this one: http://forums.anandtech.com/me...AR_FORUMVIEWTMP=Linear

hfcs = 55% fructose
sugar = 50% fructose (sans insulin resistance)
honey = ~35-40% fructose

amused said that the difference between hfcs doesn't matter because it's the same as sugar. it's not. yes, biochemically, it breaks down the same as sugar because it's fructose and glucose, but the way your body reacts to it is different. by the way, next time you see a large hfcs study, read up on who funded the study. most of the time, it's corn refiners association. that's like me pulling out a study funded by the american chiropractic association to prove to you chiropractic is helpful for chronic low back pain.

oh, by the way, i'm not eitis. i'm eits. eits. e, i, t, s. explosions in the sky. eits.

🙂

I agree with both you and Amused. At low levels, it really doesn't make a difference whether you eat sugar or HFCS. However, the extra 5% does make a significant difference when people consume high levels of it. That's 5% extra calories that get stored as fat, run injurious mechanisms, etc.

Btw, honey is badass. Raw honey is the best source of sugar you can find out there, IMO. I use a very small amount (probably 0.5 tbsp) each day. Had good vitamins, antioxidants, minerals, amino acids, etc. Tastes good as well. I bet if everyone used honey instead of sugar, we'd be way less in the crapper now. But then again, maybe not.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: SociallyChallenged

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: KingGheedora

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: SociallyChallenged
I just finally got around to watching this lecture. To be perfectly honest, I'm amazed that it has taken 30 years for someone, let alone a doctor, to explain why sugar and specifically fructose is bad for your health. All the pathways listed are required to be known by undergraduate nutrition majors. I'm an exercise biology major and have taken several biochem classes on top of one upper division nutrition class and I understood exactly where he was going. Nobody put this together before? Apparently people did as the lecturer talks about Pure, White and Deadly. I don't believe he had the evidence that we now do though. Why does the FDA continue to ignore these things?

I completely agree with what he says. My nutrition lecturer was actually doing research on this and found that fructose was terrible for people and that they gained weight, had health problems, etc much more readily than others. If you mix this along with what The Zone Diet author Barry Sears states, then the following is what is required for optimal health: high fiber, no refined sugar, no refined vegetable oils, balance of omega-3s and omega-6s. To be perfectly honest, if I could afford it, I would probably go paleolithic. However, watching this lecture and recently watching Dr. Sears talk on inflammation and the Zone, I feel it is in my best interests to start making some changes. Perhaps the first step is limiting my sweets. Perhaps a small treat once a week reduced to once every two weeks would do. I don't know, but what I'm saying is that if you wanna be healthy and perform well, popular nutrition will not really be helping you.

don't tell amused about this... she'll just sit there and call you names until you realize it's not worth your time to even try talking with her.

If I recall, I linked to this thread yesterday from a thread in OT where you and amused were arguing over HFCS vs. table sugar. You claimed HFCS was worse for people than sugar, and Amused was arguing against you. Amused said that HFCS is no worse than sugar, which is supported by the link in the OP. What you just quoted here that SociallyChallenged said does not go against what Amused said at all, if anything SC would support Amused point. Everything in this thread supports what Amused was saying and goes against what you were saying.

I dunno, I'm kind of confused by this post unless you are referring to somethings Amused said in a thread other than this one: http://forums.anandtech.com/me...AR_FORUMVIEWTMP=Linear

hfcs = 55% fructose
sugar = 50% fructose (sans insulin resistance)
honey = ~35-40% fructose

amused said that the difference between hfcs doesn't matter because it's the same as sugar. it's not. yes, biochemically, it breaks down the same as sugar because it's fructose and glucose, but the way your body reacts to it is different. by the way, next time you see a large hfcs study, read up on who funded the study. most of the time, it's corn refiners association. that's like me pulling out a study funded by the american chiropractic association to prove to you chiropractic is helpful for chronic low back pain.

oh, by the way, i'm not eitis. i'm eits. eits. e, i, t, s. explosions in the sky. eits.

🙂

I agree with both you and Amused. At low levels, it really doesn't make a difference whether you eat sugar or HFCS. However, the extra 5% does make a significant difference when people consume high levels of it. That's 5% extra calories that get stored as fat, run injurious mechanisms, etc.

Btw, honey is badass. Raw honey is the best source of sugar you can find out there, IMO. I use a very small amount (probably 0.5 tbsp) each day. Had good vitamins, antioxidants, minerals, amino acids, etc. Tastes good as well. I bet if everyone used honey instead of sugar, we'd be way less in the crapper now. But then again, maybe not.

i agree. i don't disagree with amused that, here and there, hfcs is not bad for you. but we live in a society where people constantly keep intaking an additional 5% of fructose in their foods and drinks and whatnot and it's unnecessary and it causes insulin resistance and obesity. also, what of the studies that show mercury? it could change dna to where obesity becomes genetic rather than environmental/societal.

i also don't disagree with amused when it comes to new technology keeping us lazy contributing to obesity. it makes perfect sense. i just don't think it's that by itself... i definitely think there's a hfcs link and i feel that science shows it theoretically and independent studies are starting to show it. soon enough, there will be long-term studies we can hang our hats on. as of now, there just aren't enough studies to be conclusive that hfcs doesn't cause obesity and dm-2.

 

[KingGheedora]

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: KingGheedora

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: SociallyChallenged
I just finally got around to watching this lecture. To be perfectly honest, I'm amazed that it has taken 30 years for someone, let alone a doctor, to explain why sugar and specifically fructose is bad for your health. All the pathways listed are required to be known by undergraduate nutrition majors. I'm an exercise biology major and have taken several biochem classes on top of one upper division nutrition class and I understood exactly where he was going. Nobody put this together before? Apparently people did as the lecturer talks about Pure, White and Deadly. I don't believe he had the evidence that we now do though. Why does the FDA continue to ignore these things?

I completely agree with what he says. My nutrition lecturer was actually doing research on this and found that fructose was terrible for people and that they gained weight, had health problems, etc much more readily than others. If you mix this along with what The Zone Diet author Barry Sears states, then the following is what is required for optimal health: high fiber, no refined sugar, no refined vegetable oils, balance of omega-3s and omega-6s. To be perfectly honest, if I could afford it, I would probably go paleolithic. However, watching this lecture and recently watching Dr. Sears talk on inflammation and the Zone, I feel it is in my best interests to start making some changes. Perhaps the first step is limiting my sweets. Perhaps a small treat once a week reduced to once every two weeks would do. I don't know, but what I'm saying is that if you wanna be healthy and perform well, popular nutrition will not really be helping you.

don't tell amused about this... she'll just sit there and call you names until you realize it's not worth your time to even try talking with her.

If I recall, I linked to this thread yesterday from a thread in OT where you and amused were arguing over HFCS vs. table sugar. You claimed HFCS was worse for people than sugar, and Amused was arguing against you. Amused said that HFCS is no worse than sugar, which is supported by the link in the OP. What you just quoted here that SociallyChallenged said does not go against what Amused said at all, if anything SC would support Amused point. Everything in this thread supports what Amused was saying and goes against what you were saying.

I dunno, I'm kind of confused by this post unless you are referring to somethings Amused said in a thread other than this one: http://forums.anandtech.com/me...AR_FORUMVIEWTMP=Linear

hfcs = 55% fructose
sugar = 50% fructose (sans insulin resistance)
honey = ~35-40% fructose

amused said that the difference between hfcs doesn't matter because it's the same as sugar. it's not. yes, biochemically, it breaks down the same as sugar because it's fructose and glucose, but the way your body reacts to it is different. by the way, next time you see a large hfcs study, read up on who funded the study. most of the time, it's corn refiners association. that's like me pulling out a study funded by the american chiropractic association to prove to you chiropractic is helpful for chronic low back pain.

oh, by the way, i'm not eitis. i'm eits. eits. e, i, t, s. explosions in the sky. eits.

🙂

Fair enough 🙂 . You never really stated anything in the other thread that indicated you believed the reason you believe HFCS to be worse is the 5% additional fructose. That is true, it is technically worse. I think if you said so in the beginning your argument with Amused would have never taken place.

 

[SociallyChallenged]

Haha just replied again on the OT thread. Amused makes me laugh very, very much. I pretty much have points against everything he/she says. Doesn't seemed like he/she is very experienced in nutrition or physiology tbh. *Shrugs*

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: KingGheedora

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: KingGheedora

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: SociallyChallenged
I just finally got around to watching this lecture. To be perfectly honest, I'm amazed that it has taken 30 years for someone, let alone a doctor, to explain why sugar and specifically fructose is bad for your health. All the pathways listed are required to be known by undergraduate nutrition majors. I'm an exercise biology major and have taken several biochem classes on top of one upper division nutrition class and I understood exactly where he was going. Nobody put this together before? Apparently people did as the lecturer talks about Pure, White and Deadly. I don't believe he had the evidence that we now do though. Why does the FDA continue to ignore these things?

I completely agree with what he says. My nutrition lecturer was actually doing research on this and found that fructose was terrible for people and that they gained weight, had health problems, etc much more readily than others. If you mix this along with what The Zone Diet author Barry Sears states, then the following is what is required for optimal health: high fiber, no refined sugar, no refined vegetable oils, balance of omega-3s and omega-6s. To be perfectly honest, if I could afford it, I would probably go paleolithic. However, watching this lecture and recently watching Dr. Sears talk on inflammation and the Zone, I feel it is in my best interests to start making some changes. Perhaps the first step is limiting my sweets. Perhaps a small treat once a week reduced to once every two weeks would do. I don't know, but what I'm saying is that if you wanna be healthy and perform well, popular nutrition will not really be helping you.

don't tell amused about this... she'll just sit there and call you names until you realize it's not worth your time to even try talking with her.

If I recall, I linked to this thread yesterday from a thread in OT where you and amused were arguing over HFCS vs. table sugar. You claimed HFCS was worse for people than sugar, and Amused was arguing against you. Amused said that HFCS is no worse than sugar, which is supported by the link in the OP. What you just quoted here that SociallyChallenged said does not go against what Amused said at all, if anything SC would support Amused point. Everything in this thread supports what Amused was saying and goes against what you were saying.

I dunno, I'm kind of confused by this post unless you are referring to somethings Amused said in a thread other than this one: http://forums.anandtech.com/me...AR_FORUMVIEWTMP=Linear

hfcs = 55% fructose
sugar = 50% fructose (sans insulin resistance)
honey = ~35-40% fructose

amused said that the difference between hfcs doesn't matter because it's the same as sugar. it's not. yes, biochemically, it breaks down the same as sugar because it's fructose and glucose, but the way your body reacts to it is different. by the way, next time you see a large hfcs study, read up on who funded the study. most of the time, it's corn refiners association. that's like me pulling out a study funded by the american chiropractic association to prove to you chiropractic is helpful for chronic low back pain.

oh, by the way, i'm not eitis. i'm eits. eits. e, i, t, s. explosions in the sky. eits.

🙂

Fair enough 🙂 . You never really stated anything in the other thread that indicated you believed the reason you believe HFCS to be worse is the 5% additional fructose. That is true, it is technically worse. I think if you said so in the beginning your argument with Amused would have never taken place.

i forgot to... as soon as he barged in and started belittling and putting my back against the wall, i got upset and started replying and lots of things i wanted to say either didn't come out the way i wanted them to or didn't come out at all.

and, sc, amused is a guy who likes to pretty much always agree with the status quo and will fight to the death to defend it, no matter how premature the argument may be... as you may have clearly noticed.

i just don't have time to read every single study out there to make sure whether it's valid or not and i don't have time to take time to educate our special friend, amused. no matter what i say, he's far too proud to accept it rather than be insulting and childish. i have a life in which i treat people and they get better from my "snake oil" :roll: and i have a girlfriend with two kids, two huge dogs, and finances to worry about... way more important than some realtor with a hard on for calling people names when they disagree with him without any substantive arguments.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

And here's everything that's wrong with our food industry:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09...ness/05smart.html?_r=4

A new food-labeling campaign called Smart Choices, backed by most of the nation?s largest food manufacturers, is ?designed to help shoppers easily identify smarter food and beverage choices.?

The green checkmark label that is starting to show up on store shelves will appear on hundreds of packages, including ? to the surprise of many nutritionists ? sugar-laden cereals like Cocoa Krispies and Froot Loops.

Wait, got to give stupid consumers their due too:

She said the program was also influenced by research into consumer behavior. That research showed that, while shoppers wanted more information, they did not want to hear negative messages or feel their choices were being dictated to them.

?The checkmark means the food item is a ?better for you? product, as opposed to having an x on it saying ?Don?t eat this,? ? Dr. Kennedy said. ?Consumers are smart enough to deduce that if it doesn?t have the checkmark, by implication it?s not a ?better for you? product. They want to have a choice. They don?t want to be told ?You must do this.? ?

Dr. Kennedy, who is not paid for her work on the program, defended the products endorsed by the program, including sweet cereals. She said Froot Loops was better than other things parents could choose for their children.

?You?re rushing around, you?re trying to think about healthy eating for your kids and you have a choice between a doughnut and a cereal,? Dr. Kennedy said, evoking a hypothetical parent in the supermarket. ?So Froot Loops is a better choice.?

I figure this fits well enough here not to need another thread.

 

[KingGheedora]

That ridiculous. How can this Dr. Kennedy NOT be on the cereal company's payroll? I can't believe a doctor would actually say that. This is what's wrong with the US. I like to think that people are too smart to fall for this but sadly there are those out there who will. This is so blatantly a marketing ploy.

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: SociallyChallenged
Haha just replied again on the OT thread. Amused makes me laugh very, very much. I pretty much have points against everything he/she says. Doesn't seemed like he/she is very experienced in nutrition or physiology tbh. *Shrugs*

Seems to me like Amused has some valid points in that thread... most important being that corn syrup is not the same as high fructose corn syrup... something that many don't seem to realize based on their comments, especially about the baby formula. People seem to want to demonize high fructose corn syrup because it's commonly used... but it's not high fructose corn syrup that's the problem... it's the fact that foods are being artificially sweetened at all, even if it does contain 10% more fructose than cane sugar. World health wouldn't suddenly improve if high fructose corn syrup was replaced with cane sugar around the globe.

Think about it... how many millions of years did animals survive without processed food? Why do we process food now? Obviously not because we need to since we've come this far without all the processing that's done today. One big reason is to make it taste better and more enjoyable to eat... but who really cares how much you enjoy what you eat? The people that sell it to you. Why? Well because if you enjoy it, you'll buy more of it which puts more money in their pocket. In addition... if they can change the chemical composition of it to make you eat more of it than you normally would by fooling your brain into thinking you need to eat more all while lowering their cost to make it, all the better for them, right?

I think one of the most important things I took away from this lecture is that the more processed a food is, the more likely it is to be unhealthy.

Am I going to replace high fructose corn syrup with cane sugar in my diet? No.
Am I going to reduce the amount of high fructose corn syrup and sucrose in my diet? Yes.

 

[Kipper]

Originally posted by: eits

hfcs = 55% fructose
sugar = 50% fructose (sans insulin resistance)
honey = ~35-40% fructose

amused said that the difference between hfcs doesn't matter because it's the same as sugar. it's not. yes, biochemically, it breaks down the same as sugar because it's fructose and glucose, but the way your body reacts to it is different. by the way, next time you see a large hfcs study, read up on who funded the study. most of the time, it's corn refiners association. that's like me pulling out a study funded by the american chiropractic association to prove to you chiropractic is helpful for chronic low back pain.

oh, by the way, i'm not eitis. i'm eits. eits. e, i, t, s. explosions in the sky. eits.

🙂

I happen to be one of those skeptics about alleged HFCS negative impact. I simply have not seen a single "magic bullet" study (of course, those are rare). Sure, some studies are supported by industry, but that doesn't necessarily make them bad. It is something to consider, but you have to look at the circumstances around the funding - funding arrangements vary, such as with control/ownership over the data. Some researchers are able to create a huge firewall around themselves.

Anybody care to link me to one of these HFCS studies? All I am aware of is an association with obesity, not a specific biological mechanism _unique_ to HFCS AND obesity/weight gain. The entire argument that fructose bypasses satiety mechanisms is interesting, but not particularly enlightening.