Why doesn't Coke switch from high fructose corn syrup to cane sugar?

[darkswordsman17]

Based on what KingGheedora posted, glucose isn't equal to HFCS/sucrose because its not as sweet, so you'd use more to get the same sweetness. Wouldn't that cause you to consume more of it?

Unsurprisingly, it all goes back to sugar intake. Regardless of the sugar, you should not over do it. While some (diabetics) might be more sensitive to what type it is, the average person should just focus on overall intake and limiting it.

 

[KingGheedora]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: Amused
If you think my posts said or implied that your reading comprehension sucks.

Go back to where I addressed the Fructose studies and said they were equally damning of sugar and HFCS.

Also where I addressed the study using 20% of daily vcalories from HFCS/Sugar.

I must be reading at a higher level (ie combining all of your posts into one comprehensive body).

If the word "fructose" comes in a thread, you are almost 100% guaranteed to write something along the lines of "no studies show that HFCS is worse than sugar". Every single thread that I've seen with fructose in the title (or HFCS), you are there posting the same thing.

Yes, you are equally damning of both in that post. But you attack the people who are against fructose far more heavily (I've never seen you attack other sweeteners with such wrath, although I may have missed some threads). There are threads where you are basically the first poster with any real content, threads where nothing at all was said about sugar, and you are there defending HFCS so stanchly against sugar even though no one else mentioned sugar.

These lopsided attacks form a pattern. It looks as if you feel HFCS is equal. When in fact, it isn't equal if you consider all alternatives. It could be better or it could be worse depending on the individual's need. The differences are slight (especially when comparing HFCS to sucrose), but it isn't equal to other sweeteners.

Am I to appologize for remembering the context of multiple threads? Does that mean my reading comprehension sucks? If it sucks, then others must really, really suck. And in that case, maybe you'll get your point across better with another tactic.

I'm not sure about other threads, but this particular one is about HFCS vs. sugar. In this thread people were discussing if HFCS is healthier or less healthy than sucrose. In those terms, the two are equal, regardless if a third option (glucose) is a better alternative than both.

 

[sdifox]

So should I start a mail order business for our American ATOTers that are suffering from low accessibility to Coca Cola made with sugar?

 

[SociallyChallenged]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: Amused
If you think my posts said or implied that your reading comprehension sucks.

Go back to where I addressed the Fructose studies and said they were equally damning of sugar and HFCS.

Also where I addressed the study using 20% of daily vcalories from HFCS/Sugar.

I must be reading at a higher level (ie combining all of your posts into one comprehensive body).

If the word "fructose" comes in a thread, you are almost 100% guaranteed to write something along the lines of "no studies show that HFCS is worse than sugar". Every single thread that I've seen with fructose in the title (or HFCS), you are there posting the same thing.

Yes, you are equally damning of both in that post. But you attack the people who are against fructose far more heavily (I've never seen you attack other sweeteners with such wrath, although I may have missed some threads). There are threads where you are basically the first poster with any real content, threads where nothing at all was said about sugar, and you are there defending HFCS so stanchly against sugar even though no one else mentioned sugar.

These lopsided attacks form a pattern. It looks as if you feel HFCS is equal. When in fact, it isn't equal if you consider all alternatives. It could be better or it could be worse depending on the individual's need. The differences are slight (especially when comparing HFCS to sucrose), but it isn't equal to other sweeteners.

Am I to appologize for remembering the context of multiple threads? Does that mean my reading comprehension sucks? If it sucks, then others must really, really suck. And in that case, maybe you'll get your point across better with another tactic.

Um, sorry but you fail again. I have never addressed a thread on fructose alone. And in every debate on HFCS, I say both sugar and HFCS are EQUALLY bad for you in excess. It is OTHERS who post studies on fructose alone, and I ALWAYS point out that HFCS and sugar are both half glucose/fructose. I NEVER say frustose is not bad for you, nor imply it. Quite the contrary. In every debate I say I avoid BOTH HFCS and sugar daily and use both only as a tool or for an occational treat.

Although you are a complete dickhead about this and your argument is invalid solely for its roots in ad hominem, you are generally correct. I do feel HFCS is contributing to obesity in America, even though its effects may be only very slightly worse due to slightly greater skew toward fructose. Similar changes would occur in America if it were solely cane sugar thrown into every single product. HFCS is just a cheaper way of doing it.

If anyone would like to check it out, we have a lecture by Professor Ludwig, M.D., from UCSF about the subject in ATHF. He attacks the fructose component of both sugar and HFCS. I tend to agree with him, seeing a fair deal of research leaning toward fructose being harmful to the body when not surrounded by its natural context (fiber, vitamins, etc).

Really though, Amused... You attack eits right out of the gates? Do you have a degree in nutrition? Do you have a Ph.D. or an M.D.? I'm an exercise biology major with specializations in both nutrition and psychology. I'm not a doctor, but I believe HFCS is slightly worse, especially due to the 5% difference. That makes a big difference when someone drinks a big gulp. That's Y grams of fructose of normal sugar + 5% extra fructose that gets through to the liver. If you take in 100g of HFCS, thats 5 extra grams of fructose that practically automatically gets stored into fat. These things do make a significant difference compounded over time.

However, I agree with you that both sugar and HFCS should be taken in sparingly and that if you get your kids set on a diet like that, they will have the tools to be obese. But Amused - learn to argue before you start speaking your point. Please. It makes you look and your points like idiotic.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: SociallyChallenged

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: Amused
If you think my posts said or implied that your reading comprehension sucks.

Go back to where I addressed the Fructose studies and said they were equally damning of sugar and HFCS.

Also where I addressed the study using 20% of daily vcalories from HFCS/Sugar.

I must be reading at a higher level (ie combining all of your posts into one comprehensive body).

If the word "fructose" comes in a thread, you are almost 100% guaranteed to write something along the lines of "no studies show that HFCS is worse than sugar". Every single thread that I've seen with fructose in the title (or HFCS), you are there posting the same thing.

Yes, you are equally damning of both in that post. But you attack the people who are against fructose far more heavily (I've never seen you attack other sweeteners with such wrath, although I may have missed some threads). There are threads where you are basically the first poster with any real content, threads where nothing at all was said about sugar, and you are there defending HFCS so stanchly against sugar even though no one else mentioned sugar.

These lopsided attacks form a pattern. It looks as if you feel HFCS is equal. When in fact, it isn't equal if you consider all alternatives. It could be better or it could be worse depending on the individual's need. The differences are slight (especially when comparing HFCS to sucrose), but it isn't equal to other sweeteners.

Am I to appologize for remembering the context of multiple threads? Does that mean my reading comprehension sucks? If it sucks, then others must really, really suck. And in that case, maybe you'll get your point across better with another tactic.

Um, sorry but you fail again. I have never addressed a thread on fructose alone. And in every debate on HFCS, I say both sugar and HFCS are EQUALLY bad for you in excess. It is OTHERS who post studies on fructose alone, and I ALWAYS point out that HFCS and sugar are both half glucose/fructose. I NEVER say frustose is not bad for you, nor imply it. Quite the contrary. In every debate I say I avoid BOTH HFCS and sugar daily and use both only as a tool or for an occational treat.

Although you are a complete dickhead about this and your argument is invalid solely for its roots in ad hominem, you are generally correct. I do feel HFCS is contributing to obesity in America, even though its effects may be only very slightly worse due to slightly greater skew toward fructose. Similar changes would occur in America if it were solely cane sugar thrown into every single product. HFCS is just a cheaper way of doing it.

If anyone would like to check it out, we have a lecture by Professor Ludwig, M.D., from UCSF about the subject in ATHF. He attacks the fructose component of both sugar and HFCS. I tend to agree with him, seeing a fair deal of research leaning toward fructose being harmful to the body when not surrounded by its natural context (fiber, vitamins, etc).

Really though, Amused... You attack eits right out of the gates? Do you have a degree in nutrition? Do you have a Ph.D. or an M.D.? I'm an exercise biology major with specializations in both nutrition and psychology. I'm not a doctor, but I believe HFCS is slightly worse, especially due to the 5% difference. That makes a big difference when someone drinks a big gulp. That's Y grams of fructose of normal sugar + 5% extra fructose that gets through to the liver. If you take in 100g of HFCS, thats 5 extra grams of fructose that practically automatically gets stored into fat. These things do make a significant difference compounded over time.

However, I agree with you that both sugar and HFCS should be taken in sparingly and that if you get your kids set on a diet like that, they will have the tools to be obese. But Amused - learn to argue before you start speaking your point. Please. It makes you look and your points like idiotic.

eits posts Mercola and I'm supposed to NOT attack him? Give me a break. When your first bolt "out of the gates" is to post the internet's biggest quack fuck wanna-be doctor as a reference, then yeah, you get shit for it. When you go on to post studies about fructose alone and ignorantly assume they apply in a debate over HFCS vs sugar, then yeah, you get told you're a dumbass.

As for "slightly worse" really? The only thing 55/45 HFCS is used for is drinks... in foods it's HFCS 42. That is 42% fructose and 58% glucose. So wouldn't you think it would even out over the big picture? They're getting 5% more in drinks, but 8% less in foods.

So like I said to eits: We have a FAR more sedentary society, and an average of 300 calories per capita per day increase in consumption. But you wanna blame HFCS? Really?

It's this boogie man searching that is leading us away from the real answer: Personal responsibility. We are, quite simply, victims of our own success.

And as an agnostic I find it kinda ironic that the leading cause of this is two of the seven deadly sins: Gluttony and Sloth.

 

[Fayd]

Originally posted by: Jeff7
Because of sweet business deals with the corn industry.

nope. it's cause of business deals with the sugar industry artificially raising the cost of sugar.

 

[SociallyChallenged]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: SociallyChallenged

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: Amused
If you think my posts said or implied that your reading comprehension sucks.

Go back to where I addressed the Fructose studies and said they were equally damning of sugar and HFCS.

Also where I addressed the study using 20% of daily vcalories from HFCS/Sugar.

I must be reading at a higher level (ie combining all of your posts into one comprehensive body).

If the word "fructose" comes in a thread, you are almost 100% guaranteed to write something along the lines of "no studies show that HFCS is worse than sugar". Every single thread that I've seen with fructose in the title (or HFCS), you are there posting the same thing.

Yes, you are equally damning of both in that post. But you attack the people who are against fructose far more heavily (I've never seen you attack other sweeteners with such wrath, although I may have missed some threads). There are threads where you are basically the first poster with any real content, threads where nothing at all was said about sugar, and you are there defending HFCS so stanchly against sugar even though no one else mentioned sugar.

These lopsided attacks form a pattern. It looks as if you feel HFCS is equal. When in fact, it isn't equal if you consider all alternatives. It could be better or it could be worse depending on the individual's need. The differences are slight (especially when comparing HFCS to sucrose), but it isn't equal to other sweeteners.

Am I to appologize for remembering the context of multiple threads? Does that mean my reading comprehension sucks? If it sucks, then others must really, really suck. And in that case, maybe you'll get your point across better with another tactic.

Um, sorry but you fail again. I have never addressed a thread on fructose alone. And in every debate on HFCS, I say both sugar and HFCS are EQUALLY bad for you in excess. It is OTHERS who post studies on fructose alone, and I ALWAYS point out that HFCS and sugar are both half glucose/fructose. I NEVER say frustose is not bad for you, nor imply it. Quite the contrary. In every debate I say I avoid BOTH HFCS and sugar daily and use both only as a tool or for an occational treat.

Although you are a complete dickhead about this and your argument is invalid solely for its roots in ad hominem, you are generally correct. I do feel HFCS is contributing to obesity in America, even though its effects may be only very slightly worse due to slightly greater skew toward fructose. Similar changes would occur in America if it were solely cane sugar thrown into every single product. HFCS is just a cheaper way of doing it.

If anyone would like to check it out, we have a lecture by Professor Ludwig, M.D., from UCSF about the subject in ATHF. He attacks the fructose component of both sugar and HFCS. I tend to agree with him, seeing a fair deal of research leaning toward fructose being harmful to the body when not surrounded by its natural context (fiber, vitamins, etc).

Really though, Amused... You attack eits right out of the gates? Do you have a degree in nutrition? Do you have a Ph.D. or an M.D.? I'm an exercise biology major with specializations in both nutrition and psychology. I'm not a doctor, but I believe HFCS is slightly worse, especially due to the 5% difference. That makes a big difference when someone drinks a big gulp. That's Y grams of fructose of normal sugar + 5% extra fructose that gets through to the liver. If you take in 100g of HFCS, thats 5 extra grams of fructose that practically automatically gets stored into fat. These things do make a significant difference compounded over time.

However, I agree with you that both sugar and HFCS should be taken in sparingly and that if you get your kids set on a diet like that, they will have the tools to be obese. But Amused - learn to argue before you start speaking your point. Please. It makes you look and your points like idiotic.

eits posts Mercola and I'm supposed to NOT attack him? Give me a break. When your first bolt "out of the gates" is to post the internet's biggest quack fuck wanna-be doctor as a reference, then yeah, you get shit for it. When you go on to post studies about fructose alone and ignorantly assume they apply in a debate over HFCS vs sugar, then yeah, you get told you're a dumbass.

As for "slightly worse" really? The only thing 55/45 HFCS is used for is drinks... in foods it's HFCS 42. That is 42% fructose and 58% glucose. So wouldn't you think it would even out over the big picture? They're getting 5% more in drinks, but 8% less in foods.

So like I said to eits: We have a FAR more sedentary society, and an average of 300 calories per capita per day increase in consumption. But you wanna blame HFCS? Really?

It's this boogie man searching that is leading us away from the real answer: Personal responsibility. We are, quite simply, victims of our own success.

And as an agnostic I find it kinda ironic that the leading cause of this is two of the seven deadly sins: Gluttony and Sloth.

Lmao. I'm going to ignore the inflammatory part of your post and go right to the meat of it.

You don't think that people take in a HUGE majority of their HFCS in drinks? Sodas are hugely common in the daily lives of people nowadays. Have you ever wondered why we eat 300 calories per capita more? If you'd like to research it, you can see that chemical cascade from processed sugar and HFCS actually increases ghrelin, while hindering leptin and screwing with PYY 3-36 as well. It truly IS sugar and HFCS' fault for obesity. When you're still hungry, you will still eat even if you've already met your caloric maintenance levels for the day.

I do agree that there is a degree of personal responsibility here, but do you think people want to be fat? They feel terrible for it and feel like victims. There's research out there that shows that because they eat what is available cheaply, they are getting obese. Go watch "Why are thin people not fat?" on BBC. It'll explain it at the basic level.

Also, I think you forgot to tell me your credentials in this matter. What are they exactly?

inflammatory part of Amused's post removed -Anandtech Moderator DrPizza

 

[Legendary]

I wish Coke would fully roll out a sugar based drink just to see if the market would support their claimed price increase.
I've never met someone who thinks HFCS coke tastes better than sugar Coke, so the demand is there, probably at a level high enough to sustain a higher price.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: SociallyChallenged


Lmao. I'm going to ignore the inflammatory part of your post and go right to the meat of it.

You don't think that people take in a HUGE majority of their HFCS in drinks? Sodas are hugely common in the daily lives of people nowadays. Have you ever wondered why we eat 300 calories per capita more? If you'd like to research it, you can see that chemical cascade from processed sugar and HFCS actually increases ghrelin, while hindering leptin and screwing with PYY 3-36 as well. It truly IS sugar and HFCS' fault for obesity. When you're still hungry, you will still eat even if you've already met your caloric maintenance levels for the day.

I do agree that there is a degree of personal responsibility here, but do you think people want to be fat? They feel terrible for it and feel like victims. There's research out there that shows that because they eat what is available cheaply, they are getting obese. Go watch "Why are thin people not fat?" on BBC. It'll explain it at the basic level.

Also, I think you forgot to tell me your credentials in this matter. What are they exactly?

If you are willing to equally blame sugar and HFCS then I'm with you. If you single out HFCS as the cause or even a significant contributer to the obesity epidemic, I'm going to ask for valid proof of that claim.

But by now we all know that no such proof exists, even after years of trying to prove such bullshit in vain attempts to single out a boogie man as the cause of our ever growing waist lines.

I also find your position that people are not responsible for their bodies and diets alarming, and a HUGE part of the problem.

The ONLY differences in society that directly correlates with the obesity epidemic is LIFESTYLE. And the bulk of the extra 300 calories is not just sugars, it's starches as well. Not just sodas are the problem, but munchies too. And that makes sense, because sedentary people have far more time to munch while sitting on their asses all day, and all evening.

Here is a breakdown of the added calories between 1982 and 2000:

Of that 300- calorie increase, grains (mainly refined grains) accounted for 46 percent; added fats, 24 percent; added sugars, 23 percent; fruits and vegetables, 8 percent; and the meat and dairy groups together, declined by 1 percent.

http://www.ers.usda.gov/public...DEC2002/frvol25i3a.pdf

(Page 2.)

GRAINS, mainly refined grains, make up the bulk of the added calories. Yes, sugars and added fats are there signifigantly, but the bulk is refined grains. What are refined grains mixed with sugar and added fats? MUNCHIES. That's the very contents of your average munchie.

So, you see, it's not as simple as just sugars or the ever evil HFCS. It's a mixture of things adding up to one very simple conclusion: Munchies. You may not be old enough, but I am old enough to remember how supermarkets have changed since the 70s. In the 70s, chips, crackers and snacks had a small portion of one aisle in supermarkets. Now chips have their own aisle, crackers their own aisle, and snacks in their own aisle as well. And yes, along with the explosion in munchies has been an expansion of sodas and soda consumption, but not nearly as dramatic as the explosion in the snack and munchie market.

So you see, it IS a personal responsibility issue. As we became more sedentary with the advent of cable/sat TV, video games and the internet, we started munching more and more at the same time. Which is easy to understand because idle time on the couch is munching time. Just look at what people do in theaters. It's tradition to eat while sitting idle.

And finally, I rely on real data and valid studies. You, it seems, rely on... well, I don't know. Your "credentials?"

 

[SociallyChallenged]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: SociallyChallenged


Lmao. I'm going to ignore the inflammatory part of your post and go right to the meat of it.

You don't think that people take in a HUGE majority of their HFCS in drinks? Sodas are hugely common in the daily lives of people nowadays. Have you ever wondered why we eat 300 calories per capita more? If you'd like to research it, you can see that chemical cascade from processed sugar and HFCS actually increases ghrelin, while hindering leptin and screwing with PYY 3-36 as well. It truly IS sugar and HFCS' fault for obesity. When you're still hungry, you will still eat even if you've already met your caloric maintenance levels for the day.

I do agree that there is a degree of personal responsibility here, but do you think people want to be fat? They feel terrible for it and feel like victims. There's research out there that shows that because they eat what is available cheaply, they are getting obese. Go watch "Why are thin people not fat?" on BBC. It'll explain it at the basic level.

Also, I think you forgot to tell me your credentials in this matter. What are they exactly?

If you are willing to equally blame sugar and HFCS then I'm with you. If you single out HFCS as the cause or even a significant contributer to the obesity epidemic, I'm going to ask for valid proof of that claim.

But by now we all know that no such proof exists, even after years of trying to prove such bullshit in vain attempts to single out a boogie man as the cause of our ever growing waist lines.

I also find your position that people are not responsible for their bodies and diets alarming, and a HUGE part of the problem.

The ONLY differences in society that directly correlates with the obesity epidemic is LIFESTYLE. And the bulk of the extra 300 calories is not just sugars, it's starches as well. Not just sodas are the problem, but munchies too. And that makes sense, because sedentary people have far more time to munch while sitting on their asses all day, and all evening.

Here is a breakdown of the added calories between 1982 and 2000:

Of that 300- calorie increase, grains (mainly refined grains) accounted for 46 percent; added fats, 24 percent; added sugars, 23 percent; fruits and vegetables, 8 percent; and the meat and dairy groups together, declined by 1 percent.

http://www.ers.usda.gov/public...DEC2002/frvol25i3a.pdf

(Page 2.)

GRAINS, mainly refined grains, make up the bulk of the added calories. Yes, sugars and added fats are there signifigantly, but the bulk is refined grains. What are refined grains mixed with sugar and added fats? MUNCHIES. That's the very contents of your average munchie.

So, you see, it's not as simple as just sugars or the ever evil HFCS. It's a mixture of things adding up to one very simple conclusion: Munchies. You may not be old enough, but I am old enough to remember how supermarkets have changed since the 70s. In the 70s, chips, crackers and snacks had a small portion of one aisle in supermarkets. Now chips have their own aisle, crackers their own aisle, and snacks in their own aisle as well. And yes, along with the explosion in munchies has been an expansion of sodas and soda consumption, but not nearly as dramatic as the explosion in the snack and munchie market.

So you see, it IS a personal responsibility issue. As we became more sedentary with the advent of cable/sat TV, video games and the internet, we started munching more and more at the same time. Which is easy to understand because idle time on the couch is munching time. Just look at what people do in theaters. It's tradition to eat while sitting idle.

And finally, I rely on real data and valid studies. You, it seems, rely on... well, I don't know. Your "credentials?"

Well, first of all, I believe they are both bad. However, if you know the mechanisms by which fructose acts, 5% of a high amount o HFCS is a lot more extra fructose that has to be processed by the liver. Like I said, sugar is bad. HFCS is bad. However, that extra 5% (5g in a soda with 100g of HFCS), will make a difference in the long run. They haven't done research on which I speak but the mechanisms that have already been proven show that the more fructose you get, the worse off you are. Research shows that as well. If you took two people with the same gene expression, etc, and gave one a normal American diet using only sugar and one using only HFCS, the HFCS individual would be slightly more obese and have slightly higher risks for certain diseases (metabolic syndrome, diabetes, CVD).

I stated that both HFCS and sugar operate at the hormonal level. This has to do with the satiation response. If you eat more sugar, you are hungrier. 23% increased sugar intake is significant enough to induce those other effects. If you eat more sugar, you eat more in general. This is a hormonal thing and a genetics thing. People could will themselves not to eat, but then again - who likes being hungry?

Nowhere did I say people weren't partially responsible for their bodies. However, I'm not so naive as to believe that people just don't care so much that they just get fat. There have been studies showing that interesting diseases that have no real symptoms can induce hormonal effects that lead to obesity and can stimulate hunger. That's genetic. No will even elicited there.

On top of all of this, since 1982 the whole diet fad has shifted away from fat and toward carbs. Inherently, that's another reason why people are getting fatter and feeling crappy.

It is very easy for thin people to say it is a choice to be fat. I used to say that as well. However, I've learned a lot of things about genetics and nutrition and it's not quite that simple. Does the person who is stressed, but had a good healthy diet and suddenly gains weight make that choice? Nope, cortisol slows their metabolism and instigates fat storage. Fat is both genetic and environmental, just like everything else that refers to humans. You're partially right. But you are either unwilling or uneducated if you can't see that environmentally induced genetic expression can effect obesity profoundly.

Would you like me to give you all the sources in the book I'm looking at right now? Would you like me to cite conversations I have with nutrition professors and lecturers? I'm not going to find 20 research articles to try to prove you wrong. Until you read up on general genetics on your own, you won't understand what actually occurs and won't get what actually happens. I'm not saying you're stupid or anything - quite the contrary. You understand a fair bit; but you really need the genetic background to get that obesity is not only a choice.

 

[Modelworks]

With the proposed taxes on soda drinks at 1 cent / ounce , that increases a 20oz coke by 20 cents, no way will coke do anything that increases cost more. It is already $1.49 here, that would be $1.69 + cost of sugar vs corn syrup it could reach $1.89 for a 20oz. Doubt they would do it.

 

[Jadow]

LOL, just realized I've been following this thread and all I drink is diet pop.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: SociallyChallenged

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: SociallyChallenged


Lmao. I'm going to ignore the inflammatory part of your post and go right to the meat of it.

You don't think that people take in a HUGE majority of their HFCS in drinks? Sodas are hugely common in the daily lives of people nowadays. Have you ever wondered why we eat 300 calories per capita more? If you'd like to research it, you can see that chemical cascade from processed sugar and HFCS actually increases ghrelin, while hindering leptin and screwing with PYY 3-36 as well. It truly IS sugar and HFCS' fault for obesity. When you're still hungry, you will still eat even if you've already met your caloric maintenance levels for the day.

I do agree that there is a degree of personal responsibility here, but do you think people want to be fat? They feel terrible for it and feel like victims. There's research out there that shows that because they eat what is available cheaply, they are getting obese. Go watch "Why are thin people not fat?" on BBC. It'll explain it at the basic level.

Also, I think you forgot to tell me your credentials in this matter. What are they exactly?

If you are willing to equally blame sugar and HFCS then I'm with you. If you single out HFCS as the cause or even a significant contributer to the obesity epidemic, I'm going to ask for valid proof of that claim.

But by now we all know that no such proof exists, even after years of trying to prove such bullshit in vain attempts to single out a boogie man as the cause of our ever growing waist lines.

I also find your position that people are not responsible for their bodies and diets alarming, and a HUGE part of the problem.

The ONLY differences in society that directly correlates with the obesity epidemic is LIFESTYLE. And the bulk of the extra 300 calories is not just sugars, it's starches as well. Not just sodas are the problem, but munchies too. And that makes sense, because sedentary people have far more time to munch while sitting on their asses all day, and all evening.

Here is a breakdown of the added calories between 1982 and 2000:

Of that 300- calorie increase, grains (mainly refined grains) accounted for 46 percent; added fats, 24 percent; added sugars, 23 percent; fruits and vegetables, 8 percent; and the meat and dairy groups together, declined by 1 percent.

http://www.ers.usda.gov/public...DEC2002/frvol25i3a.pdf

(Page 2.)

GRAINS, mainly refined grains, make up the bulk of the added calories. Yes, sugars and added fats are there signifigantly, but the bulk is refined grains. What are refined grains mixed with sugar and added fats? MUNCHIES. That's the very contents of your average munchie.

So, you see, it's not as simple as just sugars or the ever evil HFCS. It's a mixture of things adding up to one very simple conclusion: Munchies. You may not be old enough, but I am old enough to remember how supermarkets have changed since the 70s. In the 70s, chips, crackers and snacks had a small portion of one aisle in supermarkets. Now chips have their own aisle, crackers their own aisle, and snacks in their own aisle as well. And yes, along with the explosion in munchies has been an expansion of sodas and soda consumption, but not nearly as dramatic as the explosion in the snack and munchie market.

So you see, it IS a personal responsibility issue. As we became more sedentary with the advent of cable/sat TV, video games and the internet, we started munching more and more at the same time. Which is easy to understand because idle time on the couch is munching time. Just look at what people do in theaters. It's tradition to eat while sitting idle.

And finally, I rely on real data and valid studies. You, it seems, rely on... well, I don't know. Your "credentials?"

Well, first of all, I believe they are both bad. However, if you know the mechanisms by which fructose acts, 5% of a high amount o HFCS is a lot more extra fructose that has to be processed by the liver. Like I said, sugar is bad. HFCS is bad. However, that extra 5% (5g in a soda with 100g of HFCS), will make a difference in the long run. They haven't done research on which I speak but the mechanisms that have already been proven show that the more fructose you get, the worse off you are. Research shows that as well. If you took two people with the same gene expression, etc, and gave one a normal American diet using only sugar and one using only HFCS, the HFCS individual would be slightly more obese and have slightly higher risks for certain diseases (metabolic syndrome, diabetes, CVD).

I stated that both HFCS and sugar operate at the hormonal level. This has to do with the satiation response. If you eat more sugar, you are hungrier. 23% increased sugar intake is significant enough to induce those other effects. If you eat more sugar, you eat more in general. This is a hormonal thing and a genetics thing. People could will themselves not to eat, but then again - who likes being hungry?

Nowhere did I say people weren't partially responsible for their bodies. However, I'm not so naive as to believe that people just don't care so much that they just get fat. There have been studies showing that interesting diseases that have no real symptoms can induce hormonal effects that lead to obesity and can stimulate hunger. That's genetic. No will even elicited there.

On top of all of this, since 1982 the whole diet fad has shifted away from fat and toward carbs. Inherently, that's another reason why people are getting fatter and feeling crappy.

It is very easy for thin people to say it is a choice to be fat. I used to say that as well. However, I've learned a lot of things about genetics and nutrition and it's not quite that simple. Does the person who is stressed, but had a good healthy diet and suddenly gains weight make that choice? Nope, cortisol slows their metabolism and instigates fat storage. Fat is both genetic and environmental, just like everything else that refers to humans. You're partially right. But you are either unwilling or uneducated if you can't see that environmentally induced genetic expression can effect obesity profoundly.

Would you like me to give you all the sources in the book I'm looking at right now? Would you like me to cite conversations I have with nutrition professors and lecturers? I'm not going to find 20 research articles to try to prove you wrong. Until you read up on general genetics on your own, you won't understand what actually occurs and won't get what actually happens. I'm not saying you're stupid or anything - quite the contrary. You understand a fair bit; but you really need the genetic background to get that obesity is not only a choice.

Give me the study that proves the bolded part.

Oh wait... It doesn't exist. That's just a posit now, isn't it? In fact, every study that HAS tried to prove this has failed and proven exactly the opposite: That HFCS has no signifigant difference in obesity rates than sugar. None.

Yes, please post any and all valid peer reviewed and repeated studies you have proving me wrong.

Thanks.

And yes, genetics DOES play a huge part in obesity. In fact, if you were to look at my posts in the archive on obesity I DO talk about genetic causes to obesity and how two people can eat the same diet and end up with vastly different bodies.

But obviously obesity occurs WTHIN A GIVEN ENVIRONMENT or obesity rates would not have changed over the years. WE control our environments. Anyone who says they cannot control what they eat and how they live is being lazy and looking for external causes for their own shortcomings.

Meanwhile, to point at HFCS as any kind of signifigant cause of the obesity epidemic is absurd when the epidemic directly correlates with two FAR more likely causes: Dramtically more sedentary lifestyles and an increase in calories taken in, the bulk of which is NOT sugars, but grains.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Jadow
LOL, just realized I've been following this thread and all I drink is diet pop.

lulz just realized this too.

For the record I prefer HFCS coke over sugar coke. Sugar coke tastes too cinnamony to me.

But as covered, sugar tariffs + price floors + corn subsidies = HFCS win.

 

[SociallyChallenged]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: SociallyChallenged

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: SociallyChallenged


Lmao. I'm going to ignore the inflammatory part of your post and go right to the meat of it.

You don't think that people take in a HUGE majority of their HFCS in drinks? Sodas are hugely common in the daily lives of people nowadays. Have you ever wondered why we eat 300 calories per capita more? If you'd like to research it, you can see that chemical cascade from processed sugar and HFCS actually increases ghrelin, while hindering leptin and screwing with PYY 3-36 as well. It truly IS sugar and HFCS' fault for obesity. When you're still hungry, you will still eat even if you've already met your caloric maintenance levels for the day.

I do agree that there is a degree of personal responsibility here, but do you think people want to be fat? They feel terrible for it and feel like victims. There's research out there that shows that because they eat what is available cheaply, they are getting obese. Go watch "Why are thin people not fat?" on BBC. It'll explain it at the basic level.

Also, I think you forgot to tell me your credentials in this matter. What are they exactly?

If you are willing to equally blame sugar and HFCS then I'm with you. If you single out HFCS as the cause or even a significant contributer to the obesity epidemic, I'm going to ask for valid proof of that claim.

But by now we all know that no such proof exists, even after years of trying to prove such bullshit in vain attempts to single out a boogie man as the cause of our ever growing waist lines.

I also find your position that people are not responsible for their bodies and diets alarming, and a HUGE part of the problem.

The ONLY differences in society that directly correlates with the obesity epidemic is LIFESTYLE. And the bulk of the extra 300 calories is not just sugars, it's starches as well. Not just sodas are the problem, but munchies too. And that makes sense, because sedentary people have far more time to munch while sitting on their asses all day, and all evening.

Here is a breakdown of the added calories between 1982 and 2000:

Of that 300- calorie increase, grains (mainly refined grains) accounted for 46 percent; added fats, 24 percent; added sugars, 23 percent; fruits and vegetables, 8 percent; and the meat and dairy groups together, declined by 1 percent.

http://www.ers.usda.gov/public...DEC2002/frvol25i3a.pdf

(Page 2.)

GRAINS, mainly refined grains, make up the bulk of the added calories. Yes, sugars and added fats are there signifigantly, but the bulk is refined grains. What are refined grains mixed with sugar and added fats? MUNCHIES. That's the very contents of your average munchie.

So, you see, it's not as simple as just sugars or the ever evil HFCS. It's a mixture of things adding up to one very simple conclusion: Munchies. You may not be old enough, but I am old enough to remember how supermarkets have changed since the 70s. In the 70s, chips, crackers and snacks had a small portion of one aisle in supermarkets. Now chips have their own aisle, crackers their own aisle, and snacks in their own aisle as well. And yes, along with the explosion in munchies has been an expansion of sodas and soda consumption, but not nearly as dramatic as the explosion in the snack and munchie market.

So you see, it IS a personal responsibility issue. As we became more sedentary with the advent of cable/sat TV, video games and the internet, we started munching more and more at the same time. Which is easy to understand because idle time on the couch is munching time. Just look at what people do in theaters. It's tradition to eat while sitting idle.

And finally, I rely on real data and valid studies. You, it seems, rely on... well, I don't know. Your "credentials?"

Well, first of all, I believe they are both bad. However, if you know the mechanisms by which fructose acts, 5% of a high amount o HFCS is a lot more extra fructose that has to be processed by the liver. Like I said, sugar is bad. HFCS is bad. However, that extra 5% (5g in a soda with 100g of HFCS), will make a difference in the long run. They haven't done research on which I speak but the mechanisms that have already been proven show that the more fructose you get, the worse off you are. Research shows that as well. If you took two people with the same gene expression, etc, and gave one a normal American diet using only sugar and one using only HFCS, the HFCS individual would be slightly more obese and have slightly higher risks for certain diseases (metabolic syndrome, diabetes, CVD).

I stated that both HFCS and sugar operate at the hormonal level. This has to do with the satiation response. If you eat more sugar, you are hungrier. 23% increased sugar intake is significant enough to induce those other effects. If you eat more sugar, you eat more in general. This is a hormonal thing and a genetics thing. People could will themselves not to eat, but then again - who likes being hungry?

Nowhere did I say people weren't partially responsible for their bodies. However, I'm not so naive as to believe that people just don't care so much that they just get fat. There have been studies showing that interesting diseases that have no real symptoms can induce hormonal effects that lead to obesity and can stimulate hunger. That's genetic. No will even elicited there.

On top of all of this, since 1982 the whole diet fad has shifted away from fat and toward carbs. Inherently, that's another reason why people are getting fatter and feeling crappy.

It is very easy for thin people to say it is a choice to be fat. I used to say that as well. However, I've learned a lot of things about genetics and nutrition and it's not quite that simple. Does the person who is stressed, but had a good healthy diet and suddenly gains weight make that choice? Nope, cortisol slows their metabolism and instigates fat storage. Fat is both genetic and environmental, just like everything else that refers to humans. You're partially right. But you are either unwilling or uneducated if you can't see that environmentally induced genetic expression can effect obesity profoundly.

Would you like me to give you all the sources in the book I'm looking at right now? Would you like me to cite conversations I have with nutrition professors and lecturers? I'm not going to find 20 research articles to try to prove you wrong. Until you read up on general genetics on your own, you won't understand what actually occurs and won't get what actually happens. I'm not saying you're stupid or anything - quite the contrary. You understand a fair bit; but you really need the genetic background to get that obesity is not only a choice.

Give me the study that proves the bolded part.

Oh wait... It doesn't exist. That's just a posit now, isn't it? In fact, every study that HAS tried to prove this has failed and proven exactly the opposite: That HFCS has no signifigant difference in obesity rates than sugar. None.

Yes, please post any and all valid peer reviewed and repeated studies you have proving me wrong.

Thanks.

And yes, genetics DOES play a huge part in obesity. In fact, if you were to look at my posts in the archive on obesity I DO talk about genetic causes to obesity and how two people can eat the same diet and end up with vastly different bodies.

But obviously obesity occurs WTHIN A GIVEN ENVIRONMENT or obesity rates would not have changed over the years. WE control our environments. Anyone who says they cannot control what they eat and how they live is being lazy and looking for external causes for their own shortcomings.

Meanwhile, to point at HFCS as any kind of signifigant cause of the obesity epidemic is absurd when the epidemic directly correlates with two FAR more likely causes: Dramtically more sedentary lifestyles and an increase in calories taken in, the bulk of which is NOT sugars, but grains.

The research at my university right now is actually conducting that study. This study was done by one of my lecturers and I actually got involved with the research a bit. However, I had to call off my contribution due to family emergency. All glucose resulted in no harm. All fructose resulted in a ton of harm. Would it not make sense for there to be a spectrum? 20% fructose, 80% glucose? 50/50? The study is currently being done and unofficially I've spoken with members of the research and they are getting results that hint at it. More fructose is worse. That is nearly unconditional. HFCS is more fructose.

The studies frequently done don't test the sugar and HFCS at levels that actually make a difference. I was mentioning huge excess consumption - 100g of sugar/HFCS in a soda. Imagine the people who drink a super big gulp every day. Let's choose a normal pepsi. That's 44oz totaling nearly 150g of HFCS. I already did the calculations in the previous post. 7.5g more fructose for the liver to process? Christ, that's hefty. That's 9% of total fructose in the drink (7.5g/82.5g). You think that increasing the total fructose content by nearly 10% is insignificant and would produce the same results as sugar? Look for research on that topic. It's not done yet. That's why UC Davis is doing it. Wait for the results.

We control our environment? Wanna tell that to the fat kid who didn't choose that? Did you know he is more likely to be obese later in life even if he cleans up his diet? And even some people who control their diet don't lose weight. Some people can drop x amount of calories to try to lose it. You know what their body can do? Adapt and lower their metabolism. So this play between genetics (and I don't mean as you are born with it. I mean as you interact with the environment dynamically) and environment. Sometimes environment CAN be changed. Sometimes it can't.

By the way, do you know how many people don't know how to eat right? That's not necessarily their fault, but I find it more a fault of the educational system. Sometimes people don't have resources to tell them what's healthy and what's not. And what happens to the people that listen to popular nutrition? That canola oil, rapeseed oil, vegetable oils are all fine and dandy? They'd get fat. Environment doesn't always make it possible.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: SociallyChallenged

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: SociallyChallenged

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: SociallyChallenged


Lmao. I'm going to ignore the inflammatory part of your post and go right to the meat of it.

You don't think that people take in a HUGE majority of their HFCS in drinks? Sodas are hugely common in the daily lives of people nowadays. Have you ever wondered why we eat 300 calories per capita more? If you'd like to research it, you can see that chemical cascade from processed sugar and HFCS actually increases ghrelin, while hindering leptin and screwing with PYY 3-36 as well. It truly IS sugar and HFCS' fault for obesity. When you're still hungry, you will still eat even if you've already met your caloric maintenance levels for the day.

I do agree that there is a degree of personal responsibility here, but do you think people want to be fat? They feel terrible for it and feel like victims. There's research out there that shows that because they eat what is available cheaply, they are getting obese. Go watch "Why are thin people not fat?" on BBC. It'll explain it at the basic level.

Also, I think you forgot to tell me your credentials in this matter. What are they exactly?

If you are willing to equally blame sugar and HFCS then I'm with you. If you single out HFCS as the cause or even a significant contributer to the obesity epidemic, I'm going to ask for valid proof of that claim.

But by now we all know that no such proof exists, even after years of trying to prove such bullshit in vain attempts to single out a boogie man as the cause of our ever growing waist lines.

I also find your position that people are not responsible for their bodies and diets alarming, and a HUGE part of the problem.

The ONLY differences in society that directly correlates with the obesity epidemic is LIFESTYLE. And the bulk of the extra 300 calories is not just sugars, it's starches as well. Not just sodas are the problem, but munchies too. And that makes sense, because sedentary people have far more time to munch while sitting on their asses all day, and all evening.

Here is a breakdown of the added calories between 1982 and 2000:

Of that 300- calorie increase, grains (mainly refined grains) accounted for 46 percent; added fats, 24 percent; added sugars, 23 percent; fruits and vegetables, 8 percent; and the meat and dairy groups together, declined by 1 percent.

http://www.ers.usda.gov/public...DEC2002/frvol25i3a.pdf

(Page 2.)

GRAINS, mainly refined grains, make up the bulk of the added calories. Yes, sugars and added fats are there signifigantly, but the bulk is refined grains. What are refined grains mixed with sugar and added fats? MUNCHIES. That's the very contents of your average munchie.

So, you see, it's not as simple as just sugars or the ever evil HFCS. It's a mixture of things adding up to one very simple conclusion: Munchies. You may not be old enough, but I am old enough to remember how supermarkets have changed since the 70s. In the 70s, chips, crackers and snacks had a small portion of one aisle in supermarkets. Now chips have their own aisle, crackers their own aisle, and snacks in their own aisle as well. And yes, along with the explosion in munchies has been an expansion of sodas and soda consumption, but not nearly as dramatic as the explosion in the snack and munchie market.

So you see, it IS a personal responsibility issue. As we became more sedentary with the advent of cable/sat TV, video games and the internet, we started munching more and more at the same time. Which is easy to understand because idle time on the couch is munching time. Just look at what people do in theaters. It's tradition to eat while sitting idle.

And finally, I rely on real data and valid studies. You, it seems, rely on... well, I don't know. Your "credentials?"

Well, first of all, I believe they are both bad. However, if you know the mechanisms by which fructose acts, 5% of a high amount o HFCS is a lot more extra fructose that has to be processed by the liver. Like I said, sugar is bad. HFCS is bad. However, that extra 5% (5g in a soda with 100g of HFCS), will make a difference in the long run. They haven't done research on which I speak but the mechanisms that have already been proven show that the more fructose you get, the worse off you are. Research shows that as well. If you took two people with the same gene expression, etc, and gave one a normal American diet using only sugar and one using only HFCS, the HFCS individual would be slightly more obese and have slightly higher risks for certain diseases (metabolic syndrome, diabetes, CVD).

I stated that both HFCS and sugar operate at the hormonal level. This has to do with the satiation response. If you eat more sugar, you are hungrier. 23% increased sugar intake is significant enough to induce those other effects. If you eat more sugar, you eat more in general. This is a hormonal thing and a genetics thing. People could will themselves not to eat, but then again - who likes being hungry?

Nowhere did I say people weren't partially responsible for their bodies. However, I'm not so naive as to believe that people just don't care so much that they just get fat. There have been studies showing that interesting diseases that have no real symptoms can induce hormonal effects that lead to obesity and can stimulate hunger. That's genetic. No will even elicited there.

On top of all of this, since 1982 the whole diet fad has shifted away from fat and toward carbs. Inherently, that's another reason why people are getting fatter and feeling crappy.

It is very easy for thin people to say it is a choice to be fat. I used to say that as well. However, I've learned a lot of things about genetics and nutrition and it's not quite that simple. Does the person who is stressed, but had a good healthy diet and suddenly gains weight make that choice? Nope, cortisol slows their metabolism and instigates fat storage. Fat is both genetic and environmental, just like everything else that refers to humans. You're partially right. But you are either unwilling or uneducated if you can't see that environmentally induced genetic expression can effect obesity profoundly.

Would you like me to give you all the sources in the book I'm looking at right now? Would you like me to cite conversations I have with nutrition professors and lecturers? I'm not going to find 20 research articles to try to prove you wrong. Until you read up on general genetics on your own, you won't understand what actually occurs and won't get what actually happens. I'm not saying you're stupid or anything - quite the contrary. You understand a fair bit; but you really need the genetic background to get that obesity is not only a choice.

Give me the study that proves the bolded part.

Oh wait... It doesn't exist. That's just a posit now, isn't it? In fact, every study that HAS tried to prove this has failed and proven exactly the opposite: That HFCS has no signifigant difference in obesity rates than sugar. None.

Yes, please post any and all valid peer reviewed and repeated studies you have proving me wrong.

Thanks.

And yes, genetics DOES play a huge part in obesity. In fact, if you were to look at my posts in the archive on obesity I DO talk about genetic causes to obesity and how two people can eat the same diet and end up with vastly different bodies.

But obviously obesity occurs WTHIN A GIVEN ENVIRONMENT or obesity rates would not have changed over the years. WE control our environments. Anyone who says they cannot control what they eat and how they live is being lazy and looking for external causes for their own shortcomings.

Meanwhile, to point at HFCS as any kind of signifigant cause of the obesity epidemic is absurd when the epidemic directly correlates with two FAR more likely causes: Dramtically more sedentary lifestyles and an increase in calories taken in, the bulk of which is NOT sugars, but grains.

The research at my university right now is actually conducting that study. This study was done by one of my lecturers and I actually got involved with the research a bit. However, I had to call off my contribution due to family emergency. All glucose resulted in no harm. All fructose resulted in a ton of harm. Would it not make sense for there to be a spectrum? 20% fructose, 80% glucose? 50/50? The study is currently being done and unofficially I've spoken with members of the research and they are getting results that hint at it. More fructose is worse. That is nearly unconditional. HFCS is more fructose.

The studies frequently done don't test the sugar and HFCS at levels that actually make a difference. I was mentioning huge excess consumption - 100g of sugar/HFCS in a soda. Imagine the people who drink a super big gulp every day. Let's choose a normal pepsi. That's 44oz totaling nearly 150g of HFCS. I already did the calculations in the previous post. 7.5g more fructose for the liver to process? Christ, that's hefty. That's 9% of total fructose in the drink (7.5g/82.5g). You think that increasing the total fructose content by nearly 10% is insignificant and would produce the same results as sugar? Look for research on that topic. It's not done yet. That's why UC Davis is doing it. Wait for the results.

We control our environment? Wanna tell that to the fat kid who didn't choose that? Did you know he is more likely to be obese later in life even if he cleans up his diet? And even some people who control their diet don't lose weight. Some people can drop x amount of calories to try to lose it. You know what their body can do? Adapt and lower their metabolism. So this play between genetics (and I don't mean as you are born with it. I mean as you interact with the environment dynamically) and environment. Sometimes environment CAN be changed. Sometimes it can't.

By the way, do you know how many people don't know how to eat right? That's not necessarily their fault, but I find it more a fault of the educational system. Sometimes people don't have resources to tell them what's healthy and what's not. And what happens to the people that listen to popular nutrition? That canola oil, rapeseed oil, vegetable oils are all fine and dandy? They'd get fat. Environment doesn't always make it possible.

Okay, that study does NOT compare HFCS to sugar, nor does it say HFCS is worse than sugar. Only that fructose, in excess, is bad.

That's been well established and damns both cane/beet sugar AND HFCS equally. Still no study exists that shows greater harm from HFCS 55 or 42 than cane/beet sugar.

Meanwhile, the environment/genetic argument is another one entirely, I actually kind of agree with you, to a point. We've had threads on this and I have posted the adotion study supporting the genetic side of the argument. However, environment does play a role, as proven recently by the fat mothers have fat kids study that showed the weight of the mother DURING pregnancy directly determined the body type of the child and it's propensity for obesity in our given environment. Which, when put together with the adoption study shows that BOTH genetics and environment play roles. The question is, how much of each.

And the real question? Did we actually create the epidemic by encouraging mothers to gain excess weight during pregnancy??? Since food has become cheap, mother have been encouraged to gain for more weight than mothers before during pregnancy and have been able to do it because the relative price of food became so low.

But I completely disagree that HFCS is any more hazardous than sugar and that the obesity epidemic would be any less severe would HFCS be banned. Do I personally avoid BOTH sugar and HFCS? Of course. They are only very occational treats and tools to me. Not daily foods.

Finally, my family is proof that changes in lifestyle CAN control the propensity toward obesity. My father, and now my siblings, all gained weight starting in their 30s. My father kept gaining until his death at 59 in 1986 when he weighed 290 or so. We kids took that to heart and all but two of us exercise regularly and eat cleaner. We're all well built, with me being a body builder, another brother is a runner, and the third is a bicyclist. My sister and last brother do not exercise and have failed at diet after diet with their weight yo-yoing back and forth... ending up fatter each time.

We were all skinny kids. And we had a skinny mom who only struggled with a spare tire in middle age.

BTW, we grew up on Koolade and soda. And always had candy and Hostess snacks around. But we were always outside on our bikes or running around the neighborhood.

 

[JellyBaby]

Actually, you really do want to closely watch your sugar intake for a wide variety of reasons. One can of sugary soda pop every day = ~15 pounds over a year.

I recently caught a podcast that explains this and specifically the dangers of high fructose corn syrup. One thing that's mentioned in this video is an epidemic of obesity 6 month year olds, so obesity is not always a simple diet & exercise function. How can it be if babies are getting fat so fast?

It also talks about Coke and what they've done over the years with soda. There are also specific recommendations at the end (as well as the answer to the 6 month baby obesity epidemic which truly shocked me to the core...they show you the label of what's in some baby formula and it blew me away).

The Dr. also explains why you're not going to hear any warning from the FDA and USDA over hfcs.

It's long but very informative and very well worth the view: http://www.uctv.tv/search-details.aspx?showID=16717 . This is from the UCSF Medical Center (one of the nation's top 10 hospitals).

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: JellyBaby
Actually, you really do want to closely watch your sugar intake for a wide variety of reasons. One can of sugary soda pop every day = ~15 pounds over a year.

I recently caught a podcast that explains this and specifically the dangers of high fructose corn syrup. One thing that's mentioned in this video is an epidemic of obesity 6 month year olds, so obesity is not always a simple diet & exercise function. How can it be if babies are getting fat so fast?

It also talks about Coke and what they've done over the years with soda. There are also specific recommendations at the end (as well as the answer to the 6 month baby obesity epidemic which truly shocked me to the core...they show you the label of what's in some baby formula and it blew me away).

The Dr. also explains why you're not going to hear any warning from the FDA and USDA over hfcs.

It's long but very informative and very well worth the view: http://www.uctv.tv/search-details.aspx?showID=16717 . This is from the UCSF Medical Center (one of the nation's top 10 hospitals).

:::sigh:::

Most infants aren't getting HFCS in their diets. Yet are still increasingly overweight and growing up to be overweight later in life.

Why? This was explained by the recent "fat moms have fat kids" study that showed a mothers weight DURING pregnancy had a direct effect on their child's weight throughout it's life. That, combined with the adoption study shows that it is both GENETIC AND set in the womb how fat a child will be in a given environment. And this epidemic is hitting countires that do NOT use HFCS just as hard as it's hitting the US. Europe, and especially the UK is facing it's own obesity epidemic and none of them have sugar tariffs forcing widespread use of HFCS. So the HFCS = obesity crap is just that, crap. You'd gain just as much weight if you ate the same calories of sugar.

The FDA doesn't warn anyone about HFCS because there is absolutely ZERO evidence it is any worse for you than sugar. None. Not a single study shows it in lab animals, or humans. BOTH sugar and HFCS cause weight gain equally. The FDA and many other agencies DO warn about excess consuption of sugars including HFCS. And for good reason.

But to single out HFCS and claim that if all of it were replaced with sugar, the obesity epidemic would lessen, or even change at all is completely absurd.

 

[JellyBaby]

One thing that's alarming is just how widespread the use of high fructose corn syrup is in our foods. After watching this podcast I remember going through the kitchen and finding hfcs in far, far more products than I expected from breakfast bars to cereal to bread, yogurt, stuffing mix, ketchup on and on including whole grain wheat snack crackers. I

HFCS is cheap and it's super-sweet, that's why it's in so many foods. Unfortunately, it's tedious examining every label when you shop and often the organic section is the only place you'll find an absence of it in some things.

It's really a problem with taking in too much fructose over a long stretch of time. IIRC long ago we only took in about 15g/day via regular fruits and veggies, not enough for any negative impact. Today, it's like 70g/day (again IIRC). That video explains the biochemistry behind how your body metabolizes fructose. Pretty shocking stuff.

I changed my diet as a result (and to reduce sugar in general, a HUGE plus for health).

 

[JellyBaby]

Amused, watch the podcast. I'm curious to see if you feel differently after watching it.

I agree, obesity is really a bigger issue (so to speak). Sugar intake in general is of much greater concern but there are specific dangers with fructose. I've come across similar warnings in several books as well (the latest from a Prevention Magazine book on sugar) that list concerns with HFCS. This info. doesn't appear to be alarmist. I'm seeing this information come from credible sources and based in fact.

 

[SociallyChallenged]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: JellyBaby
Actually, you really do want to closely watch your sugar intake for a wide variety of reasons. One can of sugary soda pop every day = ~15 pounds over a year.

I recently caught a podcast that explains this and specifically the dangers of high fructose corn syrup. One thing that's mentioned in this video is an epidemic of obesity 6 month year olds, so obesity is not always a simple diet & exercise function. How can it be if babies are getting fat so fast?

It also talks about Coke and what they've done over the years with soda. There are also specific recommendations at the end (as well as the answer to the 6 month baby obesity epidemic which truly shocked me to the core...they show you the label of what's in some baby formula and it blew me away).

The Dr. also explains why you're not going to hear any warning from the FDA and USDA over hfcs.

It's long but very informative and very well worth the view: http://www.uctv.tv/search-details.aspx?showID=16717 . This is from the UCSF Medical Center (one of the nation's top 10 hospitals).

:::sigh:::

Most infants aren't getting HFCS in their diets. Yet are still increasingly overweight and growing up to be overweight later in life.

Why? This was explained by the recent "fat moms have fat kids" study that showed a mothers weight DURING pregnancy had a direct effect on their child's weight throughout it's life. That, combined with the adoption study shows that it is both GENETIC AND set in the womb how fat a child will be in a given environment. And this epidemic is hitting countires that do NOT use HFCS just as hard as it's hitting the US. Europe, and especially the UK is facing it's own obesity epidemic and none of them have sugar tariffs forcing widespread use of HFCS. So the HFCS = obesity crap is just that, crap. You'd gain just as much weight if you ate the same calories of sugar.

The FDA doesn't warn anyone about HFCS because there is absolutely ZERO evidence it is any worse for you than sugar. None. Not a single study shows it in lab animals, or humans. BOTH sugar and HFCS cause weight gain equally. The FDA and many other agencies DO warn about excess consuption of sugars including HFCS. And for good reason.

But to single out HFCS and claim that if all of it were replaced with sugar, the obesity epidemic would lessen, or even change at all is completely absurd.

What you say is true, Amused. However, if you watch that lecture, he points out the ingredients to a baby formula, which is based in corn syrup and another sugar or refined corn product. Babies are getting some crap too. We just keep tending toward actions that make our species fatter and fatter. It's terrible.

 

[SociallyChallenged]

Originally posted by: JellyBaby
One thing that's alarming is just how widespread the use of high fructose corn syrup is in our foods. After watching this podcast I remember going through the kitchen and finding hfcs in far, far more products than I expected from breakfast bars to cereal to bread, yogurt, stuffing mix, ketchup on and on including whole grain wheat snack crackers. I

HFCS is cheap and it's super-sweet, that's why it's in so many foods. Unfortunately, it's tedious examining every label when you shop and often the organic section is the only place you'll find an absence of it in some things.

It's really a problem with taking in too much fructose over a long stretch of time. IIRC long ago we only took in about 15g/day via regular fruits and veggies, not enough for any negative impact. Today, it's like 70g/day (again IIRC). That video explains the biochemistry behind how your body metabolizes fructose. Pretty shocking stuff.

I changed my diet as a result (and to reduce sugar in general, a HUGE plus for health).

I actually completely shifted my diet due to this lecture, compounded on a lot of research and other lectures I've seen. I cut out all sugar and HFCS, except for some honey, which is only 30% fructose. It's also usually in my oatmeal, which is fibrous, and the rest of my breakfast consists of eggs and bacon, which have fat that slow digestion as well.

I'm early into the diet, but I feel wonderful. My diet was pretty damn good before, but honing it in just that much more has definitely made a difference.

 

[JellyBaby]

Regarding the obese 6 month old epidemic. I believe the UCSF presentation showed a label from some baby formula which revealed it had corn syrup solids and sugar added directly and in large proportions.

Why add sugar to baby formula?

Could it be that introducing sugar early on helps get kids hooked on sweets sooner? IIRC he also mentions new studies that indicate mothers who take in too much sugar during pregnancy pass that on to their unborn kids and this may be compounding the problem. It was in the video.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: JellyBaby
Amused, watch the podcast. I'm curious to see if you feel differently after watching it.

I agree, obesity is really a bigger issue (so to speak). Sugar intake in general is of much greater concern but there are specific dangers with fructose. I've come across similar warnings in several books as well (the latest from a Prevention Magazine book on sugar) that list concerns with HFCS. This info. doesn't appear to be alarmist. I'm seeing this information come from credible sources and based in fact.

Fact: Sugar is 50% fructose. HFCS in soda is 55% fructose, in food, 42% fructose. Sugar is just as bad in excess as HFCS.

Fact: The podcast is meaningless without a valid study to support it. And not one valid study has shown HFCS to cause more negative health effects than the same calories consumed of sugar. Period. It really is that simple.

Your info is NOT based on fact and IS alarmism. They are baseless fear mongering without a single valid study to support their claims.

Yes, I know a lot of seemingly respectable folks and organizations have jumped on the "HFCS is worse than sugar" bandwagon. But when you look at the actual science, you'll find not one single study to support these fears. Not a single one. Not even one valid study that comes close to suggesting it.

 

[SociallyChallenged]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: JellyBaby
Amused, watch the podcast. I'm curious to see if you feel differently after watching it.

I agree, obesity is really a bigger issue (so to speak). Sugar intake in general is of much greater concern but there are specific dangers with fructose. I've come across similar warnings in several books as well (the latest from a Prevention Magazine book on sugar) that list concerns with HFCS. This info. doesn't appear to be alarmist. I'm seeing this information come from credible sources and based in fact.

Fact: Sugar is 50% fructose. HFCS in soda is 55% fructose, in food, 42% fructose. Sugar is just as bad in excess as HFCS.

Fact: The podcast is meaningless without a valid study to support it. And not one valid study has shown HFCS to cause more negative health effects than the same calories consumed of sugar. Period. It really is that simple.

Your info is NOT based on fact and IS alarmism. They are baseless fear mongering without a single valid study to support their claims.

Yes, I know a lot of seemingly respectable folks and organizations have jumped on the "HFCS is worse than sugar" bandwagon. But when you look at the actual science, you'll find not one single study to support these fears. Not a single one. Not even one valid study that comes close to suggesting it.

The lecture really just emphasizes that both sugar and HFCS are bad. It essentially equates them so you would agree with it. It does have valid research, etc.

However, just because research hasn't been done doesn't mean that the tendency and the mechanisms are not true. I feel that the research I mention at my school will help alleviate that better with a full spectrum of drinks to which, I except, will have a full spectrum of response based on the increasing fructose content of the drinks. Until then, we can debate about mechanisms that have been proven and speculate about the actual effect in the human body.