If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Labspaces.net)   New study finds that countries that use a lot of HFCS have more type 2 diabetics than countries that don't use as much HFCS   (labspaces.net) divider line 240
    More: Interesting, high-fructose corn syrup, Keck School of Medicine, percent higher, trade policies, dietary guidelines, preventive medicines, trade restriction, International Association of Educators  
•       •       •

6858 clicks; posted to Main » on 29 Nov 2012 at 4:37 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



240 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-29 10:45:43 AM

Magorn: ZipSplat: Keep f*ckin' that HFCS chicken. Eating multiple times over the amount of simple carbohydrates that you should is going to result in diabetes. This isn't because of some mystical property of HFCS that has evaded chemists - it's because if you eat too many simple carbs in general you're going to develop insulin resistance. And yes, having a diet flooded with cheap simple carbs (which we have, thanks to HFCS) will have an increased rate of diabetes.

Get it right.

you are wrong. Science says you are dead wrong, and nutritional science is anything but simple. Just like those idiots that bray abouthow counting calories is alway determinant of weight gain, or posit that all that is necessary to lose weight is to hit the gym, science has debunked all of you. The human body is a biochemical marvel that we barely understand, and unless you have done a lot of reading in the feild of endocrinology and can converse intelligently about eicosanods, YOU personally don't even begin to have a clue what's going on inside your own body.


Please, could either you or Dragonchild explain what the glycemic index is, it's relevance to health, and the easiest way to guestimate where a food falls on that scale in terms a person without a scientific background can understand? I have been advised I should avoid feeding my family high glycemic index foods, but I have little to no idea how to follow that advice. A Mom friend advocates agave syrup as being low on the glycemic index and will not allow her child any sweets unless they are homemade with agave syrup as opposed to other sweetners. Is this something I should be emulating to protect the health of my children?
 
2012-11-29 10:51:48 AM

draypresct: Dansker: bestie1: Dansker: mr_a: I'll wager that countries that have a lot of doctors have more reported cases of diabetes as well, as do countries with more doctors, lawyers and maybe even Indian Chiefs.

The US has fewer doctors per capita than most OECD countries.

Citation please.

dragonchild: Dansker: The US has fewer doctors per capita than most OECD countries.

Citation please.

Here you are, straight from the latest OECD Fact Book. 
[img.photobucket.com image 850x431]

Thank you. That was interesting. I think that Pocket_Fisherman has a point, but I had not expected that the US ratio would rank as low as it did.


So did Canada and Japan while Russia with a life expectancy of 69.9 years is the 5rd from the top. Is a tenth of a point significant? If not than most of the countries on the chart are statistically the same.
 
2012-11-29 10:53:07 AM
Make that 3rd from the top.
 
2012-11-29 10:53:27 AM

Therion: Is the Obvious tag not working?


The Obvious tag couldn't lift itself off the sofa.
 
2012-11-29 10:56:35 AM

wildcardjack: HakunaMatata: New study finds that countries that use a lot of KFCS have more type 2 diabetics than countries that don't use as much KFCS

Southpark already did that episode.




SIMPSONS DID IT!
 
2012-11-29 11:00:38 AM

Lunaville: Please, could either you or Dragonchild explain what the glycemic index is, it's relevance to health, and the easiest way to guestimate where a food falls on that scale in terms a person without a scientific background can understand? I have been advised I should avoid feeding my family high glycemic index foods, but I have little to no idea how to follow that advice. A Mom friend advocates agave syrup as being low on the glycemic index and will not allow her child any sweets unless they are homemade with agave syrup as opposed to other sweetners. Is this something I should be emulating to protect the health of my children?


I am neither of those people, but they are spot on with everything they say in these nutrition threads. I'll offer the advice I think they would give, and they of course should feel free to correct me.

The glycemic index is sort of a chart that shows how quickly a given food makes your blood sugar rise. A blood sugar spike causes your body to release insulin, and insulin then tells your body to store energy as fat (to put it simply). That is one of the reasons things with a high GI make you fat (although there is MUCH more to it than this). To go along with that is something called a glycemic load, which measures the glycemic index of a food per gram. Something like a carrot has a high glycemic index but a low glycemic load because they have so much fiber in them.

As for which foods have a high GI, a pretty simple (but not entirely accurate) way of figuring it out is sweetness. The sweeter something tastes the higher the GI. Only carbohydrates affect your blood sugar significantly, so anything that is primarily fat or protein doesn't affect your GI, and will lower the overall GI of any given meal.

Agave syrup is just expensive sugar. It doesn't appear to be any better or worse for you than other sweeteners like sugar, maple syrup, or honey. There are no "healthy" sweeteners, and all you can really do is lose your taste for sweetness, it wears off after a time. Incidentally anything that TASTES sweet will ALSO elevate your blood sugar, even if they don't have calories. Artificial sweeteners will also cause you to gain weight due to the hormonal response your body has to something sweet tasting. DO NOT feed children artificial sweeteners, there is SOME evidence (in rats granted) that artificial sweeteners can mess up a growing child's natural "calibration" for sweet=sugar/Calories, leading them to chronically overeat for the rest of their life.

In the end, you can't go wrong with veggies, fruits, and grass-fed meat.
 
2012-11-29 11:01:11 AM

Magorn: Science says you are dead wrong, and nutritional science is anything but simple. Just like those idiots that bray abouthow counting calories is alway determinant of weight gain, or posit that all that is necessary to lose weight is to hit the gym, science has debunked all of you.


Holy hell do you sound fat
 
2012-11-29 11:03:39 AM

bestie1: Great you've been to Brazil, France or Samoa and "all the food in the US tastes terrible because in Eastern Estonia they eat rotten beef that tastes so good". Half the people in my life grew up somewhere else. Then they come here and biatch about the same farking things. The funny thing is that they all hate each others foods too. Albanians don't get off the boat loving Mexican food they hate it. Actually everyone hates Mexican food when they get here. That's the best example. It's just different. Yes Greek sheep butter that has been left at room temperature for a week is like mana if you have a taste for it; but shifting back and forth between cultures is not something most people enjoy.


I'm baffled at how you got off on this tangent. This is not about differing cultures and cuisines, it's about a specific ingredient that, believe it or not, many people do find to taste worse than alternatives. Even once I'm used to it, it still tastes bad. It's an issue even with otherwise largely identical products in the UK.

It's still all fructose as far as the sugar goes. Whatever flavors you taste have nothing to do with the the sugar part. It's like arguing that the alcohol in bourbon is better than the alcohol in gin. It's the same. The differences are the impurities. I'd argue that corn syrup is purer than most fructose sources.

I agree wholeheartedly. It's not the HF. It's the CS that makes it taste like a greasy coin.

So what's your point?
 
2012-11-29 11:07:20 AM

Lunaville: Magorn: ZipSplat: Keep f*ckin' that HFCS chicken. Eating multiple times over the amount of simple carbohydrates that you should is going to result in diabetes. This isn't because of some mystical property of HFCS that has evaded chemists - it's because if you eat too many simple carbs in general you're going to develop insulin resistance. And yes, having a diet flooded with cheap simple carbs (which we have, thanks to HFCS) will have an increased rate of diabetes.

Get it right.

you are wrong. Science says you are dead wrong, and nutritional science is anything but simple. Just like those idiots that bray abouthow counting calories is alway determinant of weight gain, or posit that all that is necessary to lose weight is to hit the gym, science has debunked all of you. The human body is a biochemical marvel that we barely understand, and unless you have done a lot of reading in the feild of endocrinology and can converse intelligently about eicosanods, YOU personally don't even begin to have a clue what's going on inside your own body.

Please, could either you or Dragonchild explain what the glycemic index is, it's relevance to health, and the easiest way to guestimate where a food falls on that scale in terms a person without a scientific background can understand? I have been advised I should avoid feeding my family high glycemic index foods, but I have little to no idea how to follow that advice. A Mom friend advocates agave syrup as being low on the glycemic index and will not allow her child any sweets unless they are homemade with agave syrup as opposed to other sweetners. Is this something I should be emulating to protect the health of my children?


Agave syrup is just as bad as HFCS, that's big alt trying to scam you.

Stick to honey and raw sugar, but in small amounts. Get your kid used to savory and real foods.

I was raised with very little sweets so I'm not one of those people who eat crap and sweeten everything.
 
2012-11-29 11:10:52 AM

Magorn: Since insulin is the hormal Hormel trigger for fat storage, and insulin resistance is the primary trigger for Type II diabetes this explains why HCFS could be implicated in both higher rates of obesity and type two diabetes


ftfy
 
2012-11-29 11:10:57 AM

Lunaville: Magorn: ZipSplat: Keep f*ckin' that HFCS chicken. Eating multiple times over the amount of simple carbohydrates that you should is going to result in diabetes. This isn't because of some mystical property of HFCS that has evaded chemists - it's because if you eat too many simple carbs in general you're going to develop insulin resistance. And yes, having a diet flooded with cheap simple carbs (which we have, thanks to HFCS) will have an increased rate of diabetes.

Get it right.

you are wrong. Science says you are dead wrong, and nutritional science is anything but simple. Just like those idiots that bray abouthow counting calories is alway determinant of weight gain, or posit that all that is necessary to lose weight is to hit the gym, science has debunked all of you. The human body is a biochemical marvel that we barely understand, and unless you have done a lot of reading in the feild of endocrinology and can converse intelligently about eicosanods, YOU personally don't even begin to have a clue what's going on inside your own body.

Please, could either you or Dragonchild explain what the glycemic index is, it's relevance to health, and the easiest way to guestimate where a food falls on that scale in terms a person without a scientific background can understand? I have been advised I should avoid feeding my family high glycemic index foods, but I have little to no idea how to follow that advice. A Mom friend advocates agave syrup as being low on the glycemic index and will not allow her child any sweets unless they are homemade with agave syrup as opposed to other sweetners. Is this something I should be emulating to protect the health of my children?


The Glycemic Index is an attempt to measure the speed at which a particular food causes your blood sugar to rise and the overall amount of the rise. Basically, the more complex the carb, the longer it takes to break down and therefore the slower the rise. For example, as a morning treat, I'm currently snacking a piece of sugar free Russel-Stover's candy. Now if you look at the carb count, the candy has almost exactly the same carbs as a normal piece of candy. However 9 out of 10 of those carbs are "sugar alcohols" which is a form of sugar that causes a nearly neglible rise in blood sugar leval since the body basically can't break it down easily or quickly. Thus, even though I eat "Low carb" I don't even have to count those carbs. The Glycemic Index is an attempt to rate All carb-containing foods, similarly separating the "good" (slow-digesting) carbs from the "Bad" (quickly converted) ones

The Idea is that the slower your blood sugar rises, the less you need a spike of insulin to deal with the sugar. This does two good things: 1) it keeps your body from having extreme swings in blood sugar, which makes you less hungry (going from high sugar to low quickly can make you RAVENOUS otherwise) 2) The less insulin your body has to produce , the better. First, because your body gradually build up a reistance to insulin causing it to have to make more to do the same job, which further increases resistance, which lead to a spiral that eventually causes type II 'beetus . Second because insulin is a metabolic trigger for all kinds of bodily functions like raising your blood pressure, storing fat, and closing off your airways (ever wonder why there's also suddenly an Asthma epidemic in this country too?) that you probably rather not have happening.
 
2012-11-29 11:14:28 AM

moothemagiccow: Magorn: Science says you are dead wrong, and nutritional science is anything but simple. Just like those idiots that bray abouthow counting calories is alway determinant of weight gain, or posit that all that is necessary to lose weight is to hit the gym, science has debunked all of you.

Holy hell do you sound fat


And Magorn's followup comment was: "As a morning treat, I'm currently snacking a piece of sugar free Russel-Stover's candy."

Good LORD. She can't even wait until after lunch before stuffing herself full of candy?

moothemagiccow- I think you call this one
 
2012-11-29 11:17:39 AM

ArcadianRefugee: Wait.... A difference of 1.3%? This is news-worthy?


Is it even statistically significant?
 
2012-11-29 11:19:21 AM

Beta Tested: Something like a carrot has a high glycemic index but a low glycemic load because they have so much fiber in them.


I assume the same would be true of baked sweet potatoes? I have a child that eats only this vegetable. S/he will not even eat french fries. Not that I particularly want my children eating french fries. I'm just making a point about how limited this kids' palate is. Mostly he survives on peanut butter sandwiches. It drives me nuts. We had an argument last night because we had homemade burritos and this kid was picking all the beans and veggies out in order to eat the meat only. Later, he had a snack of a peanut butter sandwich and a tiny bowl of ice cream. Occasionally we force this child to eat some spinach or collards, but I get so tired of biatching at this kid and worry that we're doing more harm than good by riding him/her all the time.
To add to the confusion, his/her endocrinologist consistently tells us s/he is not taking in enough calories. He has been pushing us to feed him more fat. Last visit, he told me to start buying the kid chips. He suggested the family sized packs that contain smaller, individual packs and letting the kid have one a day. I did that for a while, but both kids started sneaking extras. The last straw was when they arrived at the supper table to full to eat the meal. I stopped buying the chips, but now I'm worried I'm going to again hear that s/he is not getting enough calories.
This kid also despises milk. So, suggestions to switch to whole milk are useless. S/he will not touch any form of milk except vanilla almond milk. Tests have revealed no sensitivity to milk, wheat, or other foods.
 
2012-11-29 11:25:48 AM

Lunaville: Beta Tested: Something like a carrot has a high glycemic index but a low glycemic load because they have so much fiber in them.

I assume the same would be true of baked sweet potatoes? I have a child that eats only this vegetable. S/he will not even eat french fries. Not that I particularly want my children eating french fries. I'm just making a point about how limited this kids' palate is. Mostly he survives on peanut butter sandwiches. It drives me nuts. We had an argument last night because we had homemade burritos and this kid was picking all the beans and veggies out in order to eat the meat only. Later, he had a snack of a peanut butter sandwich and a tiny bowl of ice cream. Occasionally we force this child to eat some spinach or collards, but I get so tired of biatching at this kid and worry that we're doing more harm than good by riding him/her all the time.
To add to the confusion, his/her endocrinologist consistently tells us s/he is not taking in enough calories. He has been pushing us to feed him more fat. Last visit, he told me to start buying the kid chips. He suggested the family sized packs that contain smaller, individual packs and letting the kid have one a day. I did that for a while, but both kids started sneaking extras. The last straw was when they arrived at the supper table to full to eat the meal. I stopped buying the chips, but now I'm worried I'm going to again hear that s/he is not getting enough calories.
This kid also despises milk. So, suggestions to switch to whole milk are useless. S/he will not touch any form of milk except vanilla almond milk. Tests have revealed no sensitivity to milk, wheat, or other foods.


I have to ask- Why do you refer to your own kid as a he-she?

You sound like a terrible parent. You call your child out on the net for having gender issues- when in reality the fact that your kid is gay (or a woman trapped in a kid's body, or whatever) has less than nothing to do with the topic of "diabeetus."

And to top it all off, you don't even force your own kid to eat properly, you let your little he-she dictate a no veggie policy and you sit back and accept this.

You really are a terrible parent.
 
2012-11-29 11:26:44 AM

Leeds: moothemagiccow: Magorn: Science says you are dead wrong, and nutritional science is anything but simple. Just like those idiots that bray abouthow counting calories is alway determinant of weight gain, or posit that all that is necessary to lose weight is to hit the gym, science has debunked all of you.

Holy hell do you sound fat

And Magorn's followup comment was: "As a morning treat, I'm currently snacking a piece of sugar free Russel-Stover's candy."

Good LORD. She can't even wait until after lunch before stuffing herself full of candy?

moothemagiccow- I think you call this one


I'm a he, rather than a she, I'm 6'2, currently about 250lbs or so , and for breakfast this morning I've had a Sugar free greek yougurt, for lunch I will be eating a protien bar, and dinner's going to be a salad with roasted chicken. I may also eat about 1/4 cup of almonds and peanuts before bed. If your sanctimonious ass thinks you could match me calorie for calorie, activity for activty, for a day, much less a week, I'd dare you to try.
 
2012-11-29 11:30:01 AM

Magorn: Leeds: moothemagiccow: Magorn: Science says you are dead wrong, and nutritional science is anything but simple. Just like those idiots that bray abouthow counting calories is alway determinant of weight gain, or posit that all that is necessary to lose weight is to hit the gym, science has debunked all of you.

Holy hell do you sound fat

And Magorn's followup comment was: "As a morning treat, I'm currently snacking a piece of sugar free Russel-Stover's candy."

Good LORD. She can't even wait until after lunch before stuffing herself full of candy?

moothemagiccow- I think you call this one

I'm a he, rather than a she, I'm 6'2, currently about 250lbs or so , and for breakfast this morning I've had a Sugar free greek yougurt, for lunch I will be eating a protien bar, and dinner's going to be a salad with roasted chicken. I may also eat about 1/4 cup of almonds and peanuts before bed. If your sanctimonious ass thinks you could match me calorie for calorie, activity for activty, for a day, much less a week, I'd dare you to try.


And risk becoming a fatty like you? You can keep your morning candy hoard to yourself. And you can keep your 32.1 BMI too - I'm happier in the 20's.
 
2012-11-29 11:34:46 AM

Lunaville: I assume the same would be true of baked sweet potatoes?


Yea, sweet potatoes are pretty ok, especially for a growing child. As a person who even had to give up FRUIT to get down to the weight I wanted (sport with weight classes), I generally eat one or two a week.

I have a child that eats only this vegetable. S/he will not even eat french fries. Not that I particularly want my children eating french fries. I'm just making a point about how limited this kids' palate is. Mostly he survives on peanut butter sandwiches. It drives me nuts. We had an argument last night because we had homemade burritos and this kid was picking all the beans and veggies out in order to eat the meat only. Later, he had a snack of a peanut butter sandwich and a tiny bowl of ice cream. Occasionally we force this child to eat some spinach or collards, but I get so tired of biatching at this kid and worry that we're doing more harm than good by riding him/her all the time.

I am really, really sorry but I know very little about raising kids. I have none of my own and have always enjoyed salads. Eating meat is good for you provided it comes from healthy animals (this discounts just about any you find in a super market).

What little experience I have is with my girlfriend's little cousin, who is also a picky eater. She is just a tiny kid, VERY skinny but healthy and active. Her parents complain she doesn't eat enough but she seems fine to me. When she stays with us I don't really make anything different. She'll eat bacon and eggs, omelets, whole roasted chicken, meatballs with ketchup (both homemade), maybe a tiny bit of salad, but I am also a bit of a hard-ass and will only let her have one "treat" a week. Got into a bit of an argument with my girlfriend about the time I told her the chocolate milk counted. Heh.

To add to the confusion, his/her endocrinologist consistently tells us s/he is not taking in enough calories. He has been pushing us to feed him more fat. Last visit, he told me to start buying the kid chips. He suggested the family sized packs that contain smaller, individual packs and letting the kid have one a day. I did that for a while, but both kids started sneaking extras. The last straw was when they arrived at the supper table to full to eat the meal. I stopped buying the chips, but now I'm worried I'm going to again hear that s/he is not getting enough calories.

This kid also despises milk. So, suggestions to switch to whole milk are useless. S/he will not touch any form of milk except vanilla almond milk. Tests have revealed no sensitivity to milk, wheat, or other foods.


I don't want to countermand a trained medical professional, especially one that has actually seen the child as a patient and isn't getting some text descriptions over the internet. But, I don't know... if they are hungry they will eat? I mean, can a kid starve themselves into malnutrition because they don't like the taste of ANY healthy food? I honestly don't know.
 
2012-11-29 11:36:43 AM

Magorn: I'm a he, rather than a she, I'm 6'2, currently about 250lbs or so , and for breakfast this morning I've had a Sugar free greek yougurt, for lunch I will be eating a protien bar, and dinner's going to be a salad with roasted chicken. I may also eat about 1/4 cup of almonds and peanuts before bed. If your sanctimonious ass thinks you could match me calorie for calorie, activity for activty, for a day, much less a week, I'd dare you to try.


There are lots of sanctimonious jerks around here, just ignore them. From that brief description it looks to me like you actually might be under-eating.
 
2012-11-29 11:40:36 AM

Beta Tested: But, I don't know... if they are hungry they will eat? I mean, can a kid starve themselves into malnutrition because they don't like the taste of ANY healthy food? I honestly don't know.


Yeah, that's the thing ... this child has some kind of no hungry gene. My second eldest nephew has the same. My nephew got to the endocrinologist too late and is a midget. My child takes an appetite stimulant that has worked wonders so far. Without it, s/he won't eat candy.

Leeds: Lunaville: Beta Tested: Something like a carrot has a high glycemic index but a low glycemic load because they have so much fiber in them.

I assume the same would be true of baked sweet potatoes? I have a child that eats only this vegetable. S/he will not even eat french fries. Not that I particularly want my children eating french fries. I'm just making a point about how limited this kids' palate is. Mostly he survives on peanut butter sandwiches. It drives me nuts. We had an argument last night because we had homemade burritos and this kid was picking all the beans and veggies out in order to eat the meat only. Later, he had a snack of a peanut butter sandwich and a tiny bowl of ice cream. Occasionally we force this child to eat some spinach or collards, but I get so tired of biatching at this kid and worry that we're doing more harm than good by riding him/her all the time.
To add to the confusion, his/her endocrinologist consistently tells us s/he is not taking in enough calories. He has been pushing us to feed him more fat. Last visit, he told me to start buying the kid chips. He suggested the family sized packs that contain smaller, individual packs and letting the kid have one a day. I did that for a while, but both kids started sneaking extras. The last straw was when they arrived at the supper table to full to eat the meal. I stopped buying the chips, but now I'm worried I'm going to again hear that s/he is not getting enough calories.
This kid also despises milk. So, suggestions to switch to whole milk are useless. S/he will not touch any form of milk except vanilla almond milk. Tests have revealed no sensitivity to milk, wheat, or other foods.

I have to ask- Why do you refer to your own kid as a he-she?

You sound like a terrible parent. You call your child out on the net for having gender issues- when in reality the fact that your kid is gay (or a woman trapped in a kid's body, or whatever) has less than nothing to do with the topic of "diabeetus."
...


I post no pictures of my kids on-line and try not to identify them in anyway on-line.
 
2012-11-29 11:43:30 AM

Lunaville: Yeah, that's the thing ... this child has some kind of no hungry gene. My second eldest nephew has the same. My nephew got to the endocrinologist too late and is a midget. My child takes an appetite stimulant that has worked wonders so far. Without it, s/he won't eat candy.


If your child has a medical condition then I would just listen to the doctor. I am in no way qualified (nor is anyone on fark) to help you with nutritional advice for them. The best we could do is maybe give you recipes to try that he or she may like.
 
2012-11-29 11:45:37 AM
So, having type-2 diabetes causes people to consume more HFCS?

Oh wait, we're assuming causation the other way, aren't we?
 
2012-11-29 11:46:35 AM

Pocket_Fisherman: Magorn: Cpl.D: I could be wrong, but I don't think the problem with HFCS is that it's HFCS. You body metabolizes HFCS just like it's sugar. Because it is. The problem is this industry is so heavily subsidized that they put HFCS in EVERYTHING. I'm amazed it hasn't turned up in plain bottled water.

Not necessarily, it might be something to o with the micro-nutirents present in the corn, or something else, but SOMETHING in HFCS seems to cause a stronger insulin response than even regular table sugar (this is not unknown, sacchrine, while sugar free, can cause the same insuling response as sugar in some people making it worthless as a sugar substitute to them)

Since insulin is the hormal trigger for fat storage, and insulin resistance is the primary trigger for Type II diabetes this explains why HCFS could be implicated in both higher rates of obesity and type two diabetes

Citation needed


I have a guess!

I think that Fructose is used preferentially in cells over glucose.

If that's the case, cells are more likely to let fructose in over glucose, so glucose circulates freely in the blood stream until needed. As it circulates, it causes insulin to be secreted. The more fructose, the longer glucose persists.

This is very very testable. Hook somebody up to an IV with sucrose, and another to an IV with HFCS. Monitor blood sugar rise over time. Repeat with 100 individuals. Publish.
 
2012-11-29 11:48:09 AM

Leeds: And to top it all off, you don't even force your own kid to eat properly, you let your little he-she dictate a no veggie policy and you sit back and accept this.
You really are a terrible parent.


My kid ate pretty much nothing except milk, juice, and little smokies sausages for the first three years of his life and he turned out fine. Over six feet tall, still doesn't like to eat vegetables, but he eats a more or less balanced diet now, just like I do. And neither one of us is overweight.

So what do you do when your kids won't eat--hold them down and pour it down their throats? Make them sit at the table for six hours until they eat something they hate? Yup, that sounds like much better parenting.

Lunaville, let your kid eat sweet potatoes and peanut butter sandwiches. The little he/she will be fine. Make it eat two sandwiches next time.
 
2012-11-29 11:49:59 AM

Beta Tested: I mean, can a kid starve themselves into malnutrition because they don't like the taste of ANY healthy food? I honestly don't know.


That's the thing, this child has a no hungry gene. One of my nephews has the same thing. My nephew was not referred to an endocrinologist soon enough and is a midget. I'm not sure his exact height, but he is noticeably less than five feet tall.

My child is on an appetite stimulant that has worked wonders so far. Before it was prescribed, there were times we could not even get him to eat candy. Seriously, we had traveled from a mostly vegetarian diet to "Please, just one bite, please try to eat the candy bar." Every bone in his/her body was visible and s/he fell below the second percentile on the height and weight chart. It was scary.

Meanwhile, the pediatrician never fails to remind me that the other child may be at a higher than average risk for diabetes and warns that this child must not be allowed to gain an extra ounce. Of course, this is the child that loves to eat: loves fruits, vegetables, milk, ice cream, Mexican, Chinese, Vietnamese, Italian, fairly much anything put on the table. That's both good and bad. S/he gobbles vegetables with no prompting, but I can't very well give one child a milkshake and refuse the same to the sibling. I feel like I'm walking a nutritional tightrope and that it is not possible for me to know enough about nutrition. I'm always looking for more and trying to gauge what is legitimate and what is hype.
 
2012-11-29 11:50:42 AM

Metalithic: I suspect the problem is too much over-sweetened junk food and too many calories, not HFCS specifically. Granted, corn syrup may be the worst offender, but good old-fashioned sugar or honey can cause just as much trouble if you eat it by the tub-full, and just about any source of excess calories will cause health problems eventually. Fruit also has fructose, but no-one is concerned about fruit intake because it is much harder to eat too much fruit than it is too drink too much soda or eat too many Twinkies.


That was always my take on it. I think that HFCS is a bigger problem though because it allows manufacturers to pack in more sugar for the volume.
 
2012-11-29 11:51:18 AM

Beta Tested: Lunaville: Yeah, that's the thing ... this child has some kind of no hungry gene. My second eldest nephew has the same. My nephew got to the endocrinologist too late and is a midget. My child takes an appetite stimulant that has worked wonders so far. Without it, s/he won't eat candy.

If your child has a medical condition then I would just listen to the doctor. I am in no way qualified (nor is anyone on fark) to help you with nutritional advice for them. The best we could do is maybe give you recipes to try that he or she may like.


I didn't even realize I'd posted that. I've lost my mind. I guess it's back to the thread about dating crazy people for me.
 
2012-11-29 11:53:02 AM

cryinoutloud: So what do you do when your kids won't eat--hold them down and pour it down their throats? Make them sit at the table for six hours until they eat something they hate? Yup, that sounds like much better parenting.


That's the way I was raised. And I looooove veggies now, arguably because I was forced to try them at every meal as a kid.

Perhaps there is a new way of thinking on this matter. But if your kids grow up and don't like to eat vegetables, you are most certainly a failure as a parent regardless of which failed techniques you used to try to get your child to appreciate good food.
 
2012-11-29 11:53:15 AM

Lunaville: Beta Tested: But, I don't know... if they are hungry they will eat? I mean, can a kid starve themselves into malnutrition because they don't like the taste of ANY healthy food? I honestly don't know.

Yeah, that's the thing ... this child has some kind of no hungry gene. My second eldest nephew has the same. My nephew got to the endocrinologist too late and is a midget. My child takes an appetite stimulant that has worked wonders so far. Without it, s/he won't eat candy.Leeds: Lunaville: Beta Tested: Something like a carrot has a high glycemic index but a low glycemic load because they have so much fiber in them.

I assume the same would be true of baked sweet potatoes? I have a child that eats only this vegetable. S/he will not even eat french fries. Not that I particularly want my children eating french fries. I'm just making a point about how limited this kids' palate is. Mostly he survives on peanut butter sandwiches. It drives me nuts. We had an argument last night because we had homemade burritos and this kid was picking all the beans and veggies out in order to eat the meat only. Later, he had a snack of a peanut butter sandwich and a tiny bowl of ice cream. Occasionally we force this child to eat some spinach or collards, but I get so tired of biatching at this kid and worry that we're doing more harm than good by riding him/her all the time.
To add to the confusion, his/her endocrinologist consistently tells us s/he is not taking in enough calories. He has been pushing us to feed him more fat. Last visit, he told me to start buying the kid chips. He suggested the family sized packs that contain smaller, individual packs and letting the kid have one a day. I did that for a while, but both kids started sneaking extras. The last straw was when they arrived at the supper table to full to eat the meal. I stopped buying the chips, but now I'm worried I'm going to again hear that s/he is not getting enough calories.
This kid also despises milk. So, suggestions to ...


Well, that tears it. I have fully lived up to my FARK name.
 
2012-11-29 11:53:28 AM
This might be one of the dumbest studies i've ever seen. When you go into a study with a predetermined conclusion you'll almost always get the results you're looking for. what they don't mention are other correlations, with possibly higher significance.

countries that eat more sugar have higher type II diabeetus rates
countries that eat more calories have higher type II diabeetus rates
countries with better medical care have higher type II diabeetus rates (because it gets diagnosed)
countries with an older average population have higher type II diabeetus rates

you can go on and on. hfcs is a fancy name for sugar. the human body treats them exactly the same. the only issue POSSIBLY with hfcs is you need slightly more cals of hfcs to get the same sweetness as regular sugar. the benefit is that hfcs costs about half as much as cane sugar, and those savings in manufacturing are passed on to us.
 
2012-11-29 11:56:55 AM

Beta Tested: Lunaville: Yeah, that's the thing ... this child has some kind of no hungry gene. My second eldest nephew has the same. My nephew got to the endocrinologist too late and is a midget. My child takes an appetite stimulant that has worked wonders so far. Without it, s/he won't eat candy.

If your child has a medical condition then I would just listen to the doctor. I am in no way qualified (nor is anyone on fark) to help you with nutritional advice for them. The best we could do is maybe give you recipes to try that he or she may like.


I've got recipes running out of my ears. Next time I'm in the endocrinologists office, I'll have him recommend a book especially on the glycemic index/load. I should have thought of that long ago.
 
2012-11-29 11:58:25 AM

Lunaville: Meanwhile, the pediatrician never fails to remind me that the other child may be at a higher than average risk for diabetes and warns that this child must not be allowed to gain an extra ounce. Of course, this is the child that loves to eat: loves fruits, vegetables, milk, ice cream, Mexican, Chinese, Vietnamese, Italian, fairly much anything put on the table. That's both good and bad. S/he gobbles vegetables with no prompting, but I can't very well give one child a milkshake and refuse the same to the sibling. I feel like I'm walking a nutritional tightrope and that it is not possible for me to know enough about nutrition. I'm always looking for more and trying to gauge what is legitimate and what is hype.


Again, I have no children and have never had to struggle with dilemmas involved in raising any, so take anything I say with a grain of salt. It sounds to me, that due to one child's medical condition, that you do in fact have to treat them differently. It isn't necessarily fair, but I can't see a way out that won't hurt one or the other. You have to look at it as if one had a disability, you would treat them as much the same as you could while making the minimum amount of concessions to keep them healthy. You just have to do the same with food.

My general advice is to just cut all the junk out. Don't eat out, don't buy ice cream, give only the one that needs them milkshakes as if they were medicine. Other than that dinner is meat and veggies. That is pretty much all I eat all week long, and due to my lovely weight gaining genes, it is what I have to do to stay lean.

/It sucks sometimes, seriously.
 
2012-11-29 11:58:37 AM

Samwise Gamgee: The government subsidy of of corn production in this country makes HFCS cheaper than sugar,


That corn readily grows in the US and sugar cane does not makes HFCS cheaper than sugar.
 
2012-11-29 12:04:01 PM

Lunaville: I've got recipes running out of my ears. Next time I'm in the endocrinologists office, I'll have him recommend a book especially on the glycemic index/load. I should have thought of that long ago.


A book really isn't necessary, just remember 3 things: Meat, veggies, and whole dairy. Meat includes fish and chicken, whole dairy means full fat with no added sweeteners of any kind. Anything that comes from an animal (butter, milk, eggs), needs to be grass fed and/or pastured. Use http://www.eatwild.com/ to source the animal products.
 
2012-11-29 12:16:01 PM

BullBearMS: Modern pressure cookers have a built in relief valve that will pop and release the pressure long before the pressure cooker could blow.

It's the old ones that were the problem. Right after World War II, pressure cookers were much in demand and manufacturers started making them with cheap metal and those really did explode. A bad reputation like that is hard to move past.

Modern pressure cookers are awesome though. You can make tender BBQ ribs in about 30 minutes. Nothing else will allow you to cook tough meats so fast.

[...]

Modern pressure cookers, about half the price is paying for the insurance. Like those orange power plugs in the hospital. Identical to ordinary plugs in your house but with a big insurance policy backing them if they fail or zap someone.
 
2012-11-29 12:16:30 PM
Lunaville: Peanut Butter is a great source of protein and fat. If your kid is a fan of meat, he/she/it will likely be full longer after meals, which is good. Nuts are a good source of calories as well. A regular diet of chips is just a terrible idea from any perspective. There are better sources of calories out there, even in things your potential child would eat. I'm not a big fan of fructose, but if your kid needs the vitamins/minerals, fruit is a good way to go. Skip the ice cream until your kid agrees to eat something healthy (veggie-wise).
 
2012-11-29 12:17:05 PM
There is immense variation in the prevalence of diabetes II within the United States of America. HFCS is available in large quantities everywhere in the US. Clearly HFCS is not the primary factor. Whether one sugar is more likely to cause obesity or diabetes or what not is not clear.

Some factors to consider:

In the US, black counties have more diabetes than white counties.
The South has more diabetes than any other region.
Some areas in the West and in New England have very low levels of diabetes.
Link to map of diabetes prevalence in the US by state and county: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_IaYDg4DX5qA/SwaF3svQsfI/AAAAAAAAAYc/SodlEpKK b1o/s1600/diabetes_map.jpg

Race, culture, age, sex, economic factors (wealth, income, education, lifestyle, availability of good medical care and advice, nutritionists per capita, number of institutionalized people per capita, etc) play roles in the promotion of obesity, one of the key factors in metabolic syndrome and diabetes.

Sugar water consumption probably has a very close link to diabetes, not because sugar causes diabetes, but because it is tightly linked to obesity and other factors in the development of metabolic syndrome and diabetes. These factors cause diabetes.

Example: in the USA today, over half of Southerners drink Coca Cola or other soft drinks for breakfast. If they drank tea or coffee instead, they'd be much healthier--it does take a lot of sodas on top of a bad diet and inactivity to make you obese or diabetic or both.

If you could set back the clock on soda consumption alone, you'd reduce the extra calories consumed by Americans by 10% according to some studies. This would likely decrease obesity and diabetes by a considerable or at least significant degree.

Coca Cola does not cause diabetes, but the habits of consumption (eating between meals, drinking sugar water with snacks and meals, eating a lot more fat, sugar and carbs than you need, etc.) form a constellation of interrelated factors that can lead to obesity and diabetes.

Having read a lot of Nietzsche I am familiar with his thesis that confusing cause and effect is one of the most common errors of philosophers (and scientists, and nutritionists and ordinary people).

Which is cause? The sugar water or the obesity? Well, both, neither, either. A correlation between high HFCS consumption and diabetes is probably statistically significant. And in this case correlation is very nearly causation because the people who really consume a lot of HFCS are eating a lot of junk food, highly processed food, food with hidden sweeteners, etc.

Speaking of hidden sweeteners, have you ever noticed how sweet the vegetables in a TV dinner are? Or how many Americans glaze their carrots with sugar? Or add milk to their string beans and mashed potatoes? or eat portions of junk food that are twenty times the "suggested serving" of Not Nearly Enough to be a Real Serving?

The box says 40 calores--per ounce. Nobody eats an ounce. I don't eat an ounce and I am totally aware of the difference between the "serving size" on the box and the "serving size I take" A serving of potato chips is ten potato chips. A real serving is one third of a tube of Pringles--or about two lunch-sized Pringle tubes, or about forty potata chips.

If you compare maps of diabetes with maps of obesity or other factors you will quickly be confused because the maps vary quite a lot. But in general, high-obesity countries are high-sugar and carbs and fat and salt countries. Every food or product or dish varies, so there is mass confusion unless you are a scientist who strictly applies controls and other scientific measures to prise the facts out of the mass of inchoate data.

On the whole, you should avoid HFCS, but I don't think you need to fear it more than glucose, fructose, sucrose, dextrose, or a dozen other sugars and their various permutations and combinations.

Drink more water, less sugar.
Drink more tea (without sugar, preferablly without milk).
Drink coffee without cream--the blacker the better.
Avoid processed foods and hidden sugar, carbs, fat, salt, fatty acids, etc.

It's common sense that will help you because the science is just too mind-boggling to follow.

And know yourself. If you can eat a single square of chocolate (one ounce) and be satisfied but scarf down a whole bag of potato chips or eat a block of cheese that weighs 10 ounces without thinking about it, then leave chocolate around to satisfy your boredom or cravings. If it's the other way round, you have enormous self-control with cheese, which you don't really like much, but can eat a whole box of chocolates at a sitting, don't sit and don't allow chocolate to stick around you or your place. Do what women do: share, share, share.

Some people can eat fruit, a light salad and yogurt at their desk and not be hungry. Others need a big lunch and should eat a small dinner.

You have to trick yourself to control yourself. You can resist everything except temptation, as Oscar Wilde so wisely observed.
 
2012-11-29 12:18:51 PM

Beta Tested: There are no "healthy" sweeteners, and all you can really do is lose your taste for sweetness, it wears off after a time. Incidentally anything that TASTES sweet will ALSO elevate your blood sugar, even if they don't have calories. Artificial sweeteners will also cause you to gain weight due to the hormonal response your body has to something sweet tasting.


The taste for sweetness really does go away; I've been through it many times. I go on and off the paleo diet a few times a year, and that's my experience each time. After a little less than a week, fruit tastes incredibly sweet, sometimes too sweet. It's a bright sweetness, too. It makes anything with refined sugar taste heavy and slightly bitter. It doesn't taste bad, I just find that it doesn't taste as good as I think it will when I reach for it. The exception foods I always go for on weekends are savory: burgers, pizza, nachos. But even with that, I've noticed that my craving for salt goes WAY down when I'm on, and I've been a salt-on-everything eater for most of my life. I was telling my mother about it over the holidays, since she's a salt-lover too. I don't advocate paleo much anymore, since most people don't care or want to shed some fat (who doesn't) but aren't willing to make any diet changes. But it really does work for me, and for a lot of other people, apparently.

I've been transitioning back into it this week after a week of pie and beer and stuffing, and yesterday was my horrible headache day. Like clockwork, the second full day back on the diet, my head hurts and I'm cranky, and the next day I feel great.
 
2012-11-29 12:24:44 PM

flux: Beta Tested: There are no "healthy" sweeteners, and all you can really do is lose your taste for sweetness, it wears off after a time. Incidentally anything that TASTES sweet will ALSO elevate your blood sugar, even if they don't have calories. Artificial sweeteners will also cause you to gain weight due to the hormonal response your body has to something sweet tasting.

The taste for sweetness really does go away; I've been through it many times. I go on and off the paleo diet a few times a year, and that's my experience each time. After a little less than a week, fruit tastes incredibly sweet, sometimes too sweet. It's a bright sweetness, too. It makes anything with refined sugar taste heavy and slightly bitter. It doesn't taste bad, I just find that it doesn't taste as good as I think it will when I reach for it. The exception foods I always go for on weekends are savory: burgers, pizza, nachos. But even with that, I've noticed that my craving for salt goes WAY down when I'm on, and I've been a salt-on-everything eater for most of my life. I was telling my mother about it over the holidays, since she's a salt-lover too. I don't advocate paleo much anymore, since most people don't care or want to shed some fat (who doesn't) but aren't willing to make any diet changes. But it really does work for me, and for a lot of other people, apparently.

I've been transitioning back into it this week after a week of pie and beer and stuffing, and yesterday was my horrible headache day. Like clockwork, the second full day back on the diet, my head hurts and I'm cranky, and the next day I feel great.


I did slow carb, and found that chips (my former favorite food) tasted way too harsh and not that good, just salt, mostly. New favorite food is peanut butter (I have one spoonful a day, or with chocolate on a cheat day). It is amazing how your taste receptors reset when not inundated with sugar constantly.
 
2012-11-29 01:25:24 PM

Beta Tested: Although there is mounting evidence that HFCS is worse for you than sucrose


No, there's not. There are just a lot of studies that simply study HFCS with no contrast with sucrose. The rest is just foodies trying to save face. It's gone from "OMG HFCS HAS MERCURY IN IT AND WILL KILL YOU!" to "Well, can't we just say it's a *tiny* bit worse if we fund more studies of HFCS exclusively? Please?"
 
2012-11-29 01:26:31 PM

Leeds: That's the way I was raised. And I looooove veggies now, arguably because I was forced to try them at every meal as a kid.
Perhaps there is a new way of thinking on this matter. But if your kids grow up and don't like to eat vegetables, you are most certainly a failure as a parent regardless of which failed techniques you used to try to get your child to appreciate good food.


Sounds like your parents were a failure, even if they did get you to eat your vegetables, because you grew up to be a huge arrogant dick.
 
2012-11-29 01:29:46 PM

Magorn: ZipSplat: Keep f*ckin' that HFCS chicken. Eating multiple times over the amount of simple carbohydrates that you should is going to result in diabetes. This isn't because of some mystical property of HFCS that has evaded chemists - it's because if you eat too many simple carbs in general you're going to develop insulin resistance. And yes, having a diet flooded with cheap simple carbs (which we have, thanks to HFCS) will have an increased rate of diabetes.

Get it right.

you are wrong. Science says you are dead wrong, and nutritional science is anything but simple. Just like those idiots that bray abouthow counting calories is alway determinant of weight gain, or posit that all that is necessary to lose weight is to hit the gym, science has debunked all of you. The human body is a biochemical marvel that we barely understand, and unless you have done a lot of reading in the feild of endocrinology and can converse intelligently about eicosanods, YOU personally don't even begin to have a clue what's going on inside your own body.


Answered with all the brazen self-righteousness and factlessness of talk radio. "You're just wrong, in spite of my inability to draw a trail of logic explaining why."
 
2012-11-29 01:33:31 PM

cryinoutloud: Leeds: That's the way I was raised. And I looooove veggies now, arguably because I was forced to try them at every meal as a kid.
Perhaps there is a new way of thinking on this matter. But if your kids grow up and don't like to eat vegetables, you are most certainly a failure as a parent regardless of which failed techniques you used to try to get your child to appreciate good food.

Sounds like your parents were a failure, even if they did get you to eat your vegetables, because you grew up to be a huge arrogant dick.


Says the person whose crotch-fruit cannot stand to eat healthy things like vegetables.

Does it feel good to be riding the wave of fatness that has covered our country, or do you just feel sticky?
 
2012-11-29 01:34:18 PM

Caeldan: Look for glucose/fructose or glucose-fructose. That's HFCS.


I just rummaged through my fridge and pantry. The only product label on which I can find "glucose-fructose" is for a jar of maraschino cherries. It's not in my ketchup, breakfast cereals, pre-sweetened oatmeal packages, coke (didn't even have to look at the ingredients cuz it's got a Kosher for Passover logo), tomato sauce, thai chili sauce, mustard, peanut butter, strawberry jam or in any of the other products that it would be in if I lived in the USA.

Like I said...maybe I just don't buy crappy enough food. The peanut butter isn't natural organic or anything, but it's not the cheapest on the shelf either. The jam is "all fruit", the cereals aren't sweet kiddie cereals......
 
2012-11-29 01:49:23 PM

ZipSplat: Magorn: ZipSplat: Keep f*ckin' that HFCS chicken. Eating multiple times over the amount of simple carbohydrates that you should is going to result in diabetes. This isn't because of some mystical property of HFCS that has evaded chemists - it's because if you eat too many simple carbs in general you're going to develop insulin resistance. And yes, having a diet flooded with cheap simple carbs (which we have, thanks to HFCS) will have an increased rate of diabetes.

Get it right.

you are wrong. Science says you are dead wrong, and nutritional science is anything but simple. Just like those idiots that bray abouthow counting calories is alway determinant of weight gain, or posit that all that is necessary to lose weight is to hit the gym, science has debunked all of you. The human body is a biochemical marvel that we barely understand, and unless you have done a lot of reading in the feild of endocrinology and can converse intelligently about eicosanods, YOU personally don't even begin to have a clue what's going on inside your own body.

Answered with all the brazen self-righteousness and factlessness of talk radio. "You're just wrong, in spite of my inability to draw a trail of logic explaining why."


How's this for experimental data? I have a blood glucose meter and because of my tinker's bent and my desire to really get a hold of my disease i conducted numerous experiements with my own body and various foods. The change in blood sugar from drinking a HCFS-sweetened Coke was faster and MUCH higher (40 points for a total of 90 vs 50) than drinking the equivalent number of fluid ounces of pure cane sugar (mexican bottled) Coke. And before you say "confirmation bias" it was a blind study, only my wife knew which was which.
 
2012-11-29 01:50:53 PM

Lunaville: Please, could either you or Dragonchild explain what the glycemic index is, it's relevance to health, and the easiest way to guestimate where a food falls on that scale in terms a person without a scientific background can understand?


Magorn: The Glycemic Index is an attempt to measure the speed at which a particular food causes your blood sugar to rise and the overall amount of the rise.


Pretty much, but I need to clarify something here. People somehow think that high glycemic index leads to high blood sugar leads to insulin leads to fat leads to diabetes. This is not correct. The concept of glycemic index is for the benefit of people who ALREADY have trouble with insulin -- i.e., diabetics. This comes down to the huge, huge difference between glucose and fructose. To explain this, let's go through various scenarios:

1) Healthy person consumes sucrose (table sugar) or HFCS -- a can of cola, for example.
In this case the fructose and glucose are broken down separately. Glucose is a basic molecule of life -- it's one of the few things your brain can consume for energy, and if you starve yourself of glucose your liver will make the stuff from whatever you have stored. One assumption is that insulin leads to fat -- this is, again, not correct. Insulin, by itself, is benign and frankly rather necessary -- just ask a Type I diabetic. They'd love to be able to make their own insulin. What insulin does, among other things, is it tells the body to process the glucose and stop eating. Yes, insulin leads you to STOP eating. The glucose largely gets stored in the liver and muscles as glycogen, which is 100% non-toxic. Now here's where the fructose comes in. Your liver has to process it, leading to all sorts of toxic by-products. This has several effects.
A) Fructose does not trigger insulin. You could eat a truck of it and your brain won't think you ate anything. This is why "a calorie is a calorie" is bunk that needs to die.
B) Fructose by-products render insulin inactive. You're making the stuff but it's not triggering glucose storage, which leads to high blood sugar. THERE is your blood sugar spike.
C) Insulin resistance. The rest of your body adapts to the runaway insulin production triggered by (B) above, and you're now on your way to Type II diabetes.
D) Fructose triggers fat production. Fructose can't be converted to glycogen. It's stored as fat.
E) The toxic by-products also trigger low-level inflammation, cause hypertension, and create the plaques that lead to atherosclerosis.
Notice this is a nasty combination. Your body has no limit to how much fructose it can want to consume, it's packaged with glucose (in HFCS or table sugar) that the fructose prevents safe storage of, and has no benign storage option itself.
Now, this is just my hypothesis, but if there's any difference between HFCS and sugar, it's that the process of hydrolysis is not perfect. Your intestine uses sucrase to break down what's left of table sugar. The good news is your body can regulate sucrase based on its existing blood sugar levels, which means the spike is dampened somewhat. HFCS has nothing to break down -- it's pre-digested -- so there's nothing stopping your blood sugar from blasting through the sucrase roof. HFCS is worse for diabetics, but if you're already diabetic it's basically the difference between being hit by a car or a truck. For everyone else it may feel and taste better, but the long-term damage to your body is EXACTLY the same.

2) Healthy person consumes glucose -- a dish of pasta, a potato, or a bowl of white rice.
In this case it's all glucose hitting the body, which is something the body is very good at processing. Yes, your blood sugar will go up. Way up, even. And then it'll go right back down before any damage is done, because you're healthy. It's quickly broken down; insulin works the way it's supposed to. Some of the glucose used immediately, much is largely converted to non-toxic glycogen, the rest to fat if your body is saturated with glycogen. For a marathon runner, nothing beats building up energy like carb loading. The downside here is that the body is adapted to consuming glucose with a large quantity of fiber and water (bulk). If there's no fiber, your body processes the glucose in minutes and the insulin (which, again, tells you to STOP eating) disappears with the glucose. You get hungry again. So it's easy to over-eat and gain weight, but with a drastic difference in by-products you're not nearly as likely to be diabetic. You are more likely to be sedentary if you get too heavy, and the body will make its own toxic products if you don't get off your ass and move around. But no, "carbs" are NOT the problem.

3) Diabetic consumes either sucrose or glucose.
In this case, the fructose has already done its damage; the short-term concerns for a diabetic consuming fructose are next to nil. The only issue here is that if someone developed type II diabetes by consuming fructose, continued consumption extends the disease. Now it's the glucose that's the problem. Diabetics either can't create (type I) or can't respond to (type II) insulin, so the otherwise benign glucose just sits in the bloodstream and rises to toxic levels. Which, mind you, glucose is so benign that the levels can get VERY high, but with diabetics it gets there. That's why it's diagnosed as a disease. Diabetics can't consume glucose not because glucose is the problem, but because of the damage to their bodies.

4) Person consumes an energetic but low GI food, like a carrot.
Whether someone is diabetic or not, a "low GI food" means the glucose isn't released into the body quickly. This is typically because it's physically locked in fiber that's slowly released by chewing and digestion. The glucose is made available to the body slowly over the course of several hours, and much of it isn't digested at all. This is why the fructose in fruit is generally harmless. There's no blood sugar spike, and when fiber's involved, the listed caloric content of a food is a high estimate.

TL;DR: Just knowing what glycemic index is incomplete information.
 
2012-11-29 01:51:18 PM

Bill_Wick's_Friend: Caeldan: Look for glucose/fructose or glucose-fructose. That's HFCS.

I just rummaged through my fridge and pantry. The only product label on which I can find "glucose-fructose" is for a jar of maraschino cherries. It's not in my ketchup, breakfast cereals, pre-sweetened oatmeal packages, coke (didn't even have to look at the ingredients cuz it's got a Kosher for Passover logo), tomato sauce, thai chili sauce, mustard, peanut butter, strawberry jam or in any of the other products that it would be in if I lived in the USA.

Like I said...maybe I just don't buy crappy enough food. The peanut butter isn't natural organic or anything, but it's not the cheapest on the shelf either. The jam is "all fruit", the cereals aren't sweet kiddie cereals......


We subsidize corn and put a tariff on sugar here. That's primarily why we have HFCS and you don't.
 
2012-11-29 01:53:35 PM

Magorn: How's this for experimental data? I have a blood glucose meter and because of my tinker's bent and my desire to really get a hold of my disease i conducted numerous experiements with my own body and various foods. The change in blood sugar from drinking a HCFS-sweetened Coke was faster and MUCH higher (40 points for a total of 90 vs 50) than drinking the equivalent number of fluid ounces of pure cane sugar (mexican bottled) Coke. And before you say "confirmation bias" it was a blind study, only my wife knew which was which.


A lay-person testing their blood glucose at home and interpreting their own results is not what I would call "experimental data", any more than I would apply that label to the Ghost Hunters poking around in an attic with a volt meter attached to an antenna.
 
2012-11-29 01:55:45 PM
and people eat more?

HFCS is why I cook things I want to eat. First of all, I control what I put in it which means I can halve the sugar and leave out the salt or whatever I want. Second of all, you are craving cookies? Well instead of grabbing a sack of Oreos and eating them all I have to spend 30 minutes making them first. (ok- I can make cookies way faster than that)

Usually I'm feeling too lazy to make cookies and just forget about it but once a week COOKIE TIME.
 
2012-11-29 02:03:10 PM

dragonchild: Lunaville: Please, could either you or Dragonchild explain what the glycemic index is, it's relevance to health, and the easiest way to guestimate where a food falls on that scale in terms a person without a scientific background can understand?

Magorn: The Glycemic Index is an attempt to measure the speed at which a particular food causes your blood sugar to rise and the overall amount of the rise.

Pretty much, but I need to clarify something here. People somehow think that high glycemic index leads to high blood sugar leads to insulin leads to fat leads to diabetes. This is not correct. The concept of glycemic index is for the benefit of people who ALREADY have trouble with insulin -- i.e., diabetics. This comes down to the huge, huge difference between glucose and fructose. To explain this, let's go through various scenarios:

1) Healthy person consumes sucrose (table sugar) or HFCS -- a can of cola, for example.
In this case the fructose and glucose are broken down separately. Glucose is a basic molecule of life -- it's one of the few things your brain can consume for energy, and if you starve yourself of glucose your liver will make the stuff from whatever you have stored. One assumption is that insulin leads to fat -- this is, again, not correct. Insulin, by itself, is benign and frankly rather necessary -- just ask a Type I diabetic. They'd love to be able to make their own insulin. What insulin does, among other things, is it tells the body to process the glucose and stop eating. Yes, insulin leads you to STOP eating. The glucose largely gets stored in the liver and muscles as glycogen, which is 100% non-toxic. Now here's where the fructose comes in. Your liver has to process it, leading to all sorts of toxic by-products. This has several effects.
A) Fructose does not trigger insulin. You could eat a truck of it and your brain won't think you ate anything. This is why "a calorie is a calorie" is bunk that needs to die.
B) Fructose b ...


Thank-you.
 
Displayed 50 of 240 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report