Do you have adblock enabled?
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  
•       •       •

6872 clicks; posted to Main » on 29 Nov 2012 at 4:37 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2012-11-29 12:00:12 AM  
i.imgur.com

'Murica.
 
2012-11-29 12:58:03 AM  
Is the Obvious tag not working?
 
2012-11-29 01:05:14 AM  
No sh*t.
 
2012-11-29 01:08:44 AM  
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.
 
2012-11-29 01:08:53 AM  
Listen, and understand. Monsanto is out there. It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are morbidly obese.
 
2012-11-29 01:33:44 AM  
yeah but the sample size for that study is necessarily limited.

i'd like to see the same diabetes rates lined up against consumption of simple carbohydrates and all carbohydrates.
 
2012-11-29 01:41:37 AM  
Correlation is not causation
 
2012-11-29 02:56:10 AM  

Therion: Is the Obvious tag not working?

 
2012-11-29 02:59:33 AM  

Therion: Is the Obvious tag not working?


this !
 
2012-11-29 03:58:01 AM  
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
 
2012-11-29 04:40:24 AM  

EvilEgg: Correlation is not causation


Logic? In a fark thread?

Get thee behind me, Satan!


/ couldn't agree more; none of that causation in the correlation
 
2012-11-29 04:42:40 AM  

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.
 
2012-11-29 04:42:51 AM  

Kazan: Listen, and understand. Monsanto is out there. It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are morbidly obese.


It must have stopped in your case then
 
2012-11-29 04:43:37 AM  
Countries with higher use of HFCS had an average prevalence of type 2 diabetes of 8 percent compared to 6.7 percent in countries not using HFCS.

"This research suggests that HFCS can increase the risk of type 2 diabetes


It doesn't suggest that at all.

said study co-author Professor Stanley Ulijaszek

Well that explains it then.

The rest of the article contains the same debunked crap about fructose that shows up in every "HFCS is evil" faux health article over the last 10 years.
 
2012-11-29 04:52:22 AM  
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.
 
2012-11-29 04:54:21 AM  
Added Sugar is bad for you. ALL of it. That means cane sugar and HFC. The difference between the two is practically nil compared to what they BOTH will do to you when you are talking about the quantities most people consume.
 
2012-11-29 04:54:31 AM  
Darn it! I meant "to drink too much soda."
 
2012-11-29 04:54:33 AM  
But.... "Sugar is sugar!"
 
2012-11-29 05:00:19 AM  
How about not putting sugar in every damned food product on the market? At this point I'm not even surprised when sugar or HFCS shows up on a random food label. It's craziness. That's why we have more of the diabeetus.
 
2012-11-29 05:00:22 AM  

EvilEgg: Correlation is not causation


Oh hey, look! Someone said correlation is not causation. That means the two items can't possibly linked! We can all just close our browser windows and forget about this nonsense now.
 
2012-11-29 05:01:15 AM  
Countries that use a lot of HFCS are countries where people eat a lot of processed food. People who eat processed food have little control over the nutritional value of the foods they eat. They are at the mercy of processed food industries which add sweeteners to increase market share. Whether that sweetener is HFCS, cane sugar or something else is mostly dictated by economics as well.

who says you cannot eat money?
 
2012-11-29 05:02:03 AM  
TFA notes that Canada's HFCS use is "up there" but gives no actual figure for comparison. I can't see how it could be too high since I don't see HFCS listed as an ingredient in any products. It's not in ketchup, soda, candy bars, prepared sauces etc etc the way it seems to be in the USA.

Maybe I just don't buy crappy enough food.
 
2012-11-29 05:02:10 AM  

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.


herp de derp
 
2012-11-29 05:14:18 AM  

Shyla: But.... "Sugar is sugar!"


Your body doesn't know the .... diff... *thud*
 
2012-11-29 05:15:29 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.


blog.2modern.com
 
2012-11-29 05:17:41 AM  
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.
 
2012-11-29 05:26:34 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.

I always figured "people who eat a farkton of sugar get sugar problems," although it does appear to my layman's eye that yeah, HFCS has some issues more than other sources of sugars.
 
2012-11-29 05:26:40 AM  
But we are free, damn it! I would much rather have a higher risk of the type 2 wilford brimleys than live in some country where you can go to jail for offensive Facebook comments or even get your head cut off for insulting from sheep-farking prophet!

:-D
 
2012-11-29 05:31:23 AM  
Wait.... A difference of 1.3%? This is news-worthy?
 
2012-11-29 05:35:21 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.


But when food manufacturers add HFCS to everything, then it becomes a problem.

/Read your labels sheeple!
 
2012-11-29 05:35:44 AM  

iheartscotch: Get thee behind me, Satan!


Buttsecks?
 
2012-11-29 05:36:19 AM  

EvilEgg: Correlation is not causation


So eat as much of that crap as you want?
 
2012-11-29 05:37:37 AM  
Mock26:

But we are free, damn it! I would much rather have a higher risk of the type 2 wilford brimleys than live in some country where you can go to jail for offensive Facebook comments or even get your head cut off for insulting from sheep-farking prophet!

:-D


Is this the sort of thing you... check under your bed every night for?
 
2012-11-29 05:47:00 AM  

GreatGlavinsGhost: 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.

But when food manufacturers add HFCS to everything, then it becomes a problem.

/Read your labels sheeple!


Well, they certainly could lay off it. It seems almost everything has some sort of added sweetener. Soy lecithin bothers me more, though. It adds fat and calories, but doesn't even taste good.
 
2012-11-29 05:55:24 AM  
Not drinking sodas does a lot, since they're mostly corn syrup and fizz.

I'm a geek who does his own baking and cooking from scratch, so I don't get a lot of HFCS. Still working on this bucket of leftover Halloween candy though.
 
2012-11-29 05:56:41 AM  

SpinStopper: Shyla: But.... "Sugar is sugar!"

Your body doesn't know the .... diff... *thud*



Sugar: The Bitter Truth

Worth your time. Sugar should be a treat, not a staple.
 
2012-11-29 06:03:18 AM  
They needed a study?

Who is going to disagree with the premise, besides ADM maybe?
 
2012-11-29 06:07:56 AM  
Wilford Brimley did not give you permission to stop eating sugar, citizen.

/He won't stop till we all the diabeetus
 
2012-11-29 06:15:34 AM  
Obvious tag obviously in a diabetic coma.
 
2012-11-29 06:20:05 AM  
i495.photobucket.com
NOW (OFFICIALLY) FREE ON YOUTUBE


Worth a watch. I was pleasantly surprised to see this favorite of mine for free there when I was browsing YouTube for a free movie to watch. It's worth a look to see just how ubiquitous corn (and HFCS) are.
 
2012-11-29 06:22:42 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.


Sigh, have you tasted sugar vs. HFCS, like sodas with cane sugar vs. regular? HFCS tastes sweeter. It tastes like it's going to go straight to your pancreas and require more insulin to cancel out.

Why are there so many goddamn white knights trying to defend HFCS? She's not going to sleep with you.
 
2012-11-29 06:27:31 AM  

EvilEgg: Correlation is not causation


No, but it isn't like that was all they looked at.

The study reports that countries that use HFCS in their food supply had a 20 percent higher prevalence of diabetes than countries that did not use HFCS. The analysis also revealed that HFCS's association with the "significantly increased prevalence of diabetes" occurred independent of total sugar intake and obesity levels.
 
2012-11-29 06:28:19 AM  
Well, the rich need to kill off the surplus population somehow.

www.esquire.com
 
2012-11-29 06:29:09 AM  
The obvious solution to this problem is to switch to Low Fructose Corn Syrup.
 
2012-11-29 06:39:06 AM  

Asa Phelps: yeah but the sample size for that study is necessarily limited.

i'd like to see the same diabetes rates lined up against consumption of simple carbohydrates and all carbohydrates.


This.
 
2012-11-29 06:40:09 AM  

liam76: EvilEgg: Correlation is not causation

No, but it isn't like that was all they looked at.

The study reports that countries that use HFCS in their food supply had a 20 percent higher prevalence of diabetes than countries that did not use HFCS. The analysis also revealed that HFCS's association with the "significantly increased prevalence of diabetes" occurred independent of total sugar intake and obesity levels.


How many years did it take them to figure out the whole cholesterol/heart attack relationship? What, they still haven't?

The different fatty acids have different metabolic properties. So do the different amino acids, glutamine being the prime example (cancer cells can use it for damn near everything). So why would sugars be any different? I can verify today, but if fructose is metabolized by a different enzyme, or utilizes different receptors to enter the cell, or to be recognized by the pancreas, or initiates insulin signaling that in any way varies in intensity or effector kinases/transcription factors, then I think it would be safe to conclude it is metabolized differently, and could have different effects. Why sugars would be treated any differently than amino acids or fatty acids, whose structures can be quite similar but can each involve different individual metabolic enzymes, is beyond me. That's the research I'd like to see (it might even be on Pubmed right now...).
 
2012-11-29 06:48:56 AM  
but i'm at a higher risk to GET type 2 diabetes and i don't even EAT HFCS
cause my waist is bigger than 40
 
2012-11-29 06:49:45 AM  

Bill_Wick's_Friend: TFA notes that Canada's HFCS use is "up there" but gives no actual figure for comparison. I can't see how it could be too high since I don't see HFCS listed as an ingredient in any products. It's not in ketchup, soda, candy bars, prepared sauces etc etc the way it seems to be in the USA.

Maybe I just don't buy crappy enough food.


We don't list it as HFCS on our labels.

Look for glucose/fructose or glucose-fructose. That's HFCS.
 
2012-11-29 06:54:21 AM  

Therion: Is the Obvious tag not working?


This.

I try to avoid that crap like the plague.
 
2012-11-29 06:57:10 AM  
As a newly diagnosed diabetic, let me pass on a tip to all and sundry that I didn't know until too late:

Have your docs check your vitamin D level regularly and supplement them as necessary.

vit.D is hugely important in sensitizing the Insulin receptors in cells, allowing you to use less insulin to do the same job. Most adult who do not work outside are somewhat to severely deficient in it even if they drink Vit D milk (and our obsessive use of sunscreen ain't helping matters either).Therefore Vit D deficiency is a major contributing factor to the onset of Type II diabetes (and may explain why in NA African-Americans have a higher incidence of it even after controlling for all lifestyle factors)

My doc is offering me some hope that with massive Vit D supplements and the low carb diet I'm undertaking I may be able to completely reverse the disease. So for whatever it's worth, get yourselves checked.
 
2012-11-29 06:57:23 AM  
You will eat what we give you and you will act like you like it. Ungrateful bunch of serfs keep thinking they are elite!
 
2012-11-29 07:00:31 AM  
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.
 
2012-11-29 07:02:13 AM  

Shyla: But.... "Sugar is sugar!"


Ask anyone who homebrews if "sugar is sugar" and see what they tell you. Especially someone who does an all-grain process.
 
2012-11-29 07:06:12 AM  

Metalithic: 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.


Whole fruit regularly gives you fiber, too.

That's why fruit juice is not a great alternative.
 
2012-11-29 07:07:39 AM  

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


No, a difference of 1.3 percent points. But to just go with it, if we take the US population and round it down to 314 million, that would mean that you'd have a difference of (314 * 0.08 - 314 * 0.067) = (roughly) 4 million people with diabetes. Just think about those 4 million people who suddenly cost less in healthcare, cost less in benefits (some people with extreme diabetes get all kinds of funky side effects and secondary issues) etc. And at what cost? Putting less HFCS in the food. People would need to grow up and stop going for the sweetest crap out there.
 
2012-11-29 07:09:28 AM  

born_yesterday: Why sugars would be treated any differently than amino acids or fatty acids, whose structures can be quite similar but can each involve different individual metabolic enzymes, is beyond me.


This. I mentioned home brewing in my last post above, but this is a great example. When doing your grain conversion, you have to target very specific temperatures for certain targeted results. Different sugars are created at different temperatures by different enzymes. In turn, these sugars are processed differently by the yeast. Some are metabolized by them and others cannot be. When you carbonate you have to take into account what TYPE of sugar you're using to prime. Some have only a 50% conversion rate while others are 100% fermentable. Sugars are different. It's the same in the body I have no doubt.
 
2012-11-29 07:18:07 AM  
Uhh, because it's sugar, and companies use HFCS instead of sucrose because it's cheaper so they can put more in everything?

"People eat too much sugar" is too simple. We need more conspiracies so we can't blame ourselves!
 
2012-11-29 07:23:06 AM  

EvilEgg: Correlation is not causation


Nope, it means you need to establish the latter from the former with a causal link.

Which has been done.

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.


Treating all simple sugars like they're the same molecule is as ignorant as swapping methanol for booze -- they're both alcohols, after all. You're about 40 years behind the curve here.
 
2012-11-29 07:25:21 AM  

dragonchild: Treating all simple sugars like they're the same molecule is as ignorant as swapping methanol for booze


HFCS is glucose and fructose. Sucrose is glucose and fructose. They ARE the same molecules.
 
2012-11-29 07:32:42 AM  

Magorn: As a newly diagnosed diabetic, let me pass on a tip to all and sundry that I didn't know until too late:

Have your docs check your vitamin D level regularly and supplement them as necessary.

vit.D is hugely important in sensitizing the Insulin receptors in cells, allowing you to use less insulin to do the same job. Most adult who do not work outside are somewhat to severely deficient in it even if they drink Vit D milk (and our obsessive use of sunscreen ain't helping matters either).Therefore Vit D deficiency is a major contributing factor to the onset of Type II diabetes (and may explain why in NA African-Americans have a higher incidence of it even after controlling for all lifestyle factors)

My doc is offering me some hope that with massive Vit D supplements and the low carb diet I'm undertaking I may be able to completely reverse the disease. So for whatever it's worth, get yourselves checked.


How often did/do you exercise?
 
2012-11-29 07:34:41 AM  

Ehcks: dragonchild: Treating all simple sugars like they're the same molecule is as ignorant as swapping methanol for booze

HFCS is glucose and fructose. Sucrose is glucose and fructose. They ARE the same molecules.


But different proportions

That's like saying ..... oh never mind, people like you are hopeless, I'm tired of splaning.
 
2012-11-29 07:35:48 AM  
How about this. Show me a study of people who eat other sweeteners like cane sugar, honey, molasses and etc vs corn syrup at the same caloric level.

Why would corn syrup vs. cane sugar matter? I don't think it does because I've never seen any study that says it does. The US has a lot of cheap sweats, people like sweats, and sweats cause diabetes. That doesn't build a case that corn sweeteners are evil.

It bothers me that this the poorly thought scare of the day. Monsanto monsanto monsanto. Jesus Christ do they even top seed corn market? They top seed production but do they specifically lead in corn.

Step 1: Look at the most successful companies in every industry.
Step 2: Envy the profits of those companies because those companies are all run by 1 space alien apiece that enslaves 10s of thousands of ignorant people with "money" and "benefits"
Step 3: Masturbate while you imagine having 4 billion dollars in revenue redistributed to you and your friends.
Step 4: Profit
 
2012-11-29 07:37:45 AM  
www.chickenhead.com
 
2012-11-29 07:38:35 AM  

mrlewish: Ehcks: dragonchild: Treating all simple sugars like they're the same molecule is as ignorant as swapping methanol for booze

HFCS is glucose and fructose. Sucrose is glucose and fructose. They ARE the same molecules.

But different proportions

That's like saying ..... oh never mind, people like you are hopeless, I'm tired of splaning.


Sucrose is always 50/50. HFCS is either 55/42 or 42/53 with the rest water. Oh noes 8% different proportions of sugars!
 
2012-11-29 07:39:22 AM  
There is also this:
www.ge.com
The #1 disease in the world isn't diabetes it's starvation followed by bullet wounds. How much HFCS is sold in central Africa?
 
2012-11-29 07:40:37 AM  
Whoops wrong chart and I can't edit that:
www.ge.com
 
2012-11-29 07:46:42 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.


Fructose may cause fatty liver disease thought that is still being researched. Fiber reduces the impact of fructose on your liver. So consuming fructose in fruit that is conveniently packaged with fiber doesn't cause the trouble that drinking a can of fructose soda does. And as you pointed out it is hard to eat enough fruit do do yourself much harm (because of the fiber bulk).
 
2012-11-29 07:48:51 AM  

Ehcks: Uhh, because it's sugar, and companies use HFCS instead of sucrose because it's cheaper so they can put more in everything?

"People eat too much sugar" is too simple. We need more conspiracies so we can't blame ourselves!


I think the issue is that it's in everything, like you just said.

So you're right, people are eating too much sugar. But not necessarily because they're binging on cupcakes.
 
2012-11-29 07:49:47 AM  

bmongar: Fructose may cause fatty liver disease thought that is still being researched. Fiber reduces the impact of fructose on your liver.


But that doesn't change anything as far as "Real Sugar" drinks go. Or anything else with "Real Sugar" instead of corn sugar. Sucrose is still 50% fructose. What you're saying is that sugar is bad.
 
2012-11-29 07:50:10 AM  
Part of the problem with HFCS is that it's in everything these days. It's almost impossible to moderate your intake.

Plus it makes food (and I use the term loosely) cheaper, leading to bigger portions at lower prices.

A brick of Coke here in Australia costs $25. At Shaws back in the States you can find Coke on sale every other week, 4 x 12pks for $9.99 or $5 for a brick.

In 9 months I went from 265lbs to 205lbs and the biggest difference in my diet was eliminating HFCS and drinking fewer cans of soda containing it.

Your mileage may vary, but for my money HFCS and low cost food that uses HFCS are the two biggest culprits.
 
2012-11-29 07:50:47 AM  

bestie1: There is also this:
[www.ge.com image 500x350]
The #1 disease in the world isn't diabetes it's starvation followed by bullet wounds. How much HFCS is sold in central Africa?


What is your argument here?

People in central Africa die from gunshot wounds and starvation, so HFCS doesn't contribute to diabetes?
 
2012-11-29 07:51:30 AM  

Ehcks: HFCS is glucose and fructose. Sucrose is glucose and fructose. They ARE the same molecules.


HFCS is not a molecule; it's a blend. Nutritionally there's no distinction between it and sucrose, yes, but it helps if you get the basic facts right.

The negative health effects of HFCS and sucrose have been isolated to the fructose. Monosaccharides also include glucose, galactose, and lactose, among others. They should NOT be considered equivalent. Fructose is nothing like glucose (which is benign to the point that your body makes the stuff) and a lot of people can't even digest lactose.

If it was as simple as "sugar" then the Japanese diet, which is very glucose-heavy, shouldn't result in one of the highest life expectancies in the world. And no, quantity isn't the whole story. If you swapped all the glucose they consume with pure fructose, keeping the portions and everything else exactly the same, the country's number of diabetics would skyrocket.
 
2012-11-29 07:52:19 AM  

dragonchild: EvilEgg: Correlation is not causation

Nope, it means you need to establish the latter from the former with a causal link.

Which has been done.

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.

Treating all simple sugars like they're the same molecule is as ignorant as swapping methanol for booze -- they're both alcohols, after all. You're about 40 years behind the curve here.


High-fructose corn syrup causes characteristics of obesity in rats: increased body weight, body fat and triglyceride levels.
Bocarsly ME, Powell ES, Avena NM, Hoebel BG.
Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 2010 Nov;97(1):101-6. Epub 2010 Feb 26.

J Nutr. 2009 Jun;139(6):1242S-1245S. Epub 2009 Apr 29.
The effect of high-fructose corn syrup consumption on triglycerides and uric acid.
Angelopoulos TJ, Lowndes J, Zukley L, Melanson KJ, Nguyen V, Huffman A, Rippe JM.

The second one is a review, with a glaring comment in the abstract: "Evidence shows that fructose bypasses many of the body's satiating signals, thus potentially promoting overconsumption of energy, weight gain, and the development on insulin resistance." I'm curious what the evidence is, but it's probably better than some random dudes on FARK saying "sugar is sugar".

And to show that I'm not heartless, that it's not just all dollars and cents:

Misconceptions about high-fructose corn syrup: is it uniquely responsible for obesity, reactive dicarbonyl compounds, and advanced glycation endproducts?

White JS.

J Nutr. 2009 Jun;139(6):1219S-1227S. Epub 2009 Apr 22.

Here's one for the "sugar is sugar" people. I can spot some glaring errors in his [lack of] methodogy, and his refusal to address specific methodological errors in the work he criticizes, as well as some logical holes in the points he addresses, but if you're going to take a stand on this issue, at least have a peer-reviewed review to cite.
 
2012-11-29 07:57:47 AM  

Ehcks: bmongar: Fructose may cause fatty liver disease thought that is still being researched. Fiber reduces the impact of fructose on your liver.

But that doesn't change anything as far as "Real Sugar" drinks go. Or anything else with "Real Sugar" instead of corn sugar. Sucrose is still 50% fructose. What you're saying is that sugar is bad.


Sucrose doesn't affect the liver as much as fructose. That step to break it do sucrose is where the extra liver fat is produced.
 
2012-11-29 07:57:54 AM  

dragonchild: Ehcks: HFCS is glucose and fructose. Sucrose is glucose and fructose. They ARE the same molecules.

HFCS is not a molecule; it's a blend. Nutritionally there's no distinction between it and sucrose, yes, but it helps if you get the basic facts right..


HFCS is two molecules. The very first thing your body does to sucrose is to break it into exactly the same two molecules in almost exactly the same ratio. There is no functional difference in your body between HFCS and sucrose. The only real difference is that HFCS is much cheaper, so it's used in higher quantities in more foods. The problem is that people eat too much sugar, partly because they make food with too much sugar.
 
2012-11-29 07:59:15 AM  

bmongar: Ehcks: bmongar: Fructose may cause fatty liver disease thought that is still being researched. Fiber reduces the impact of fructose on your liver.

But that doesn't change anything as far as "Real Sugar" drinks go. Or anything else with "Real Sugar" instead of corn sugar. Sucrose is still 50% fructose. What you're saying is that sugar is bad.

Sucrose doesn't affect the liver as much as fructose. That step to break it do sucrose is where the extra liver fat is produced.


Ignore what I just said. I had my chemistry backwards
 
2012-11-29 08:03:05 AM  

Ehcks: There is no functional difference in your body between HFCS and sucrose.


Hi! Can you get me a citation on this? Preferably not the one I just posted?

Thanks!
 
2012-11-29 08:06:04 AM  

EvilEgg: Correlation is not causation


Say it with me, everyone!
 
2012-11-29 08:06:42 AM  

EvilEgg: Correlation is not causation


And therefore, we can just keep using HFCS until everyone is diabetic...'cuz it certainly ain't the HFCS doing it!

/If you don't wanna say it, don't imply it.
 
2012-11-29 08:09:06 AM  
anytime i've gone overseas long enough for my tastebuds to adjust and then come back i always realize how sweet everything is in the states - even the healthy stuff

after awhile you start to become desensitized to it, but it's kind of ridiculous
 
2012-11-29 08:12:32 AM  
How will the corn industry survive if we continue to criticize;
- Ethanol
- HFCS
- Subsidies
 
2012-11-29 08:13:56 AM  
I find the idea that people are scanning labels with the sole purpose of learning which sugar is in their food pretty silly. I know two things about HFCS: 1) it's cheaper 2) it doesn't taste as good.
 
2012-11-29 08:15:52 AM  

Ehcks: bmongar: Fructose may cause fatty liver disease thought that is still being researched. Fiber reduces the impact of fructose on your liver.

But that doesn't change anything as far as "Real Sugar" drinks go. Or anything else with "Real Sugar" instead of corn sugar. Sucrose is still 50% fructose. What you're saying is that sugar is bad.


It actually makes a big difference. Liver biochemistry is effectively different than brain and muscle biochemistry. The brain is a pig for glucose. The liver doesn't treat fructose like it does glucose even if there exist nice biochemical pathways to interconvert. They just aren't active in the liver and that's where the action is. You can have solid university level knowledge of biochemistry and not understand this. I was a huge skeptic about the dangers of fructose and then read about 40 papers and coupled that to some metabolomics studies I was involved in. I hated admitting it, but HFCS is actually really bad stuff.
 
2012-11-29 08:16:26 AM  

born_yesterday: Hi! Can you get me a citation on this? Preferably not the one I just posted?


wildcardjack's link to Lustig's lecture is more educational than informational, but that's why it's so damn good.

The meat of the lecture is when he goes into detail on the metabolic processes for glucose and fructose. Starts at 42:30. That's not the part to skip; it's the part to pay attention.

Hopefully, SOME people here might learn enough to distinguish between basic sugars before the day is out.
 
2012-11-29 08:19:23 AM  

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.


They controlled for GDP according the abstract, which should be a pretty strong indication of the number of physicians in the country. I don't have access to the full article to read the rest, but this does seem suggestive. They propose an established mechanism for cause, and seem to have controlled for the most obvious factors.

They may be wrong and something else may be happening of course, but this isn't a bit of woo that can be dismissed out of hand. Someone is going to have to do a real study that contradicts it, not post snark to a non-peer reviewed web site.
 
2012-11-29 08:19:57 AM  

BHShaman: How will the corn industry survive if we continue to criticize;
- Ethanol
- HFCS
- Subsidies


If we would just kill the subsidies the other two would work themselves out.. but you know.. elections.
 
2012-11-29 08:20:43 AM  
Hmm, it's almost like food that has to be loaded with a bunch of wacky preservatives to be able to be shipped hundreds of miles and remain stable on a store shelf for a few weeks has to be loaded with a bunch of added sugar and salt to make it actually sorta taste good.

Learn to cook and buy locally sourced food when you can, your wallet and your waistline will thank you.
 
2012-11-29 08:27:09 AM  

vharshyde: EvilEgg: Correlation is not causation

Say it with me, everyone!


But causation does force correlation. In particular, we do not have someone saying "oh look, when the Redskins win the last game before the election, the incumbent wins, isn't that weird?" Instead we have a hypothesis: that known liver response to fructose is different than it is to sucrose, and that liver dysfunction is the prime cause of Type II Diabetes, so it is possible that one could lead to the other so that a correlation may exist. It does so, which makes their hypothesis plausible. Yes, it is not proved (although you'd be hard pressed to find anything in science that is), but now instead of simply stating the old saw, you need to advance a plausible hypothesis that explains why their hypothesis is wrong, and your hypothesis needs to agree with their data, and provide a prediction that contradicts theirs or you need to show that their data does not actually support their conclusion. Chanting a slogan does neither.
 
2012-11-29 08:27:55 AM  

CheatCommando: Someone is going to have to do a real study that contradicts it, not post snark to a non-peer reviewed web site.


Again, there's a huge misunderstanding of the purpose of correlations here. Correlations are not the result of study; they are the trigger for study. It's just the first step. You first find a correlation, then find the cause, and it's the latter part that's a million times more important. But in this case, we're going backwards. We already know what fructose does. The increasing rates of obesity and diabetes in developed countries justified the research, but it's now well-understood at a biochemical level. We do not need to toss around more correlation studies; people need to know what fructose does to the body. Another correlation study just throws a few more papers into a shouting match.
 
2012-11-29 08:28:52 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.


Bingo, no one complains about high fructose agave syrup for some reason. HFCS is sugar, plain and simple, and since it is cheaper than food it gets put into everything, even things like soup that one would not normally expect to contain sugar. A visitor from the UK once complained that even the mashed potatoes he was served in the US were too damn sweet.
 
2012-11-29 08:29:12 AM  

wademh: The liver doesn't treat fructose like it does glucose even if there exist nice biochemical pathways to interconvert. They just aren't active in the liver and that's where the action is. You can have solid university level knowledge of biochemistry and not understand this.


Being introduced to liver biochemistry was like being introduced to an entire exciting new world of chemistry. It's one thing to "know" that it is responsible for the breakdown and detoxification of virtually everything, it is quite another to learn exactly what level of complexity this entails. It almost makes me feel bad for how I treat mine.
 
2012-11-29 08:30:34 AM  

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.


It turns up in a brand or two of 'vitamin fortified' water marketed as enhanced.Like Dragonchild, I do think that HFCS is metabolized differently. I also think it and other sugars turn up in our processed foods way, way too often.

Growing up we couldn't afford many store bought foods. We had a huge garden and everyone was required to help in it. My mother had an enormous freezer that she used to put food up for the year. When she made spaghetti, she started with tomatoes from our garden. There was no sugar of any kind in the sauce. Most commercial spaghetti sauce contains HFCS. The remaining jars contain sugar. I always wonder why? Sugar is not needed in spaghetti sauce.

Also, did you see the thread about the WW I vet who flew his plane something like 30 feet (?) off the ground in France to deliver a flag and boost french morale? His photograph looked a bit like your photograph. In the subsequent comments I either demoted or promoted you referring to you as Capt.D. Being civilian it's hard for me to keep the ranking system straight in my mind.
 
2012-11-29 08:31:20 AM  

CheatCommando: known liver response to fructose is different than it is to sucrose


The liver doesn't see sucrose. Sucrose is either hydrolyzed in the stomach or broken down by intestinal enzymes. When you consume sucrose, half the caloric energy winds up as fructose in the liver.

Nutritionally, the only real difference between fructose and sucrose, in terms of fructose load, is concentration.
 
2012-11-29 08:34:09 AM  

EvilEgg: Correlation is not causation


came for this

/reaches for a tissue
 
2012-11-29 08:35:05 AM  
We also have twice as many dishwashers per capita. Something must be done
 
2012-11-29 08:37:05 AM  

Lunaville: Like Dragonchild, I do think that HFCS is metabolized differently.


It's not metabolized differently. The reason why I got grumpy is because ZipSplat went on a Taubes-ian derp-spree about "simple carbs" which equates glucose and fructose when the Japanese diet blows open a HUGE hole in that idiocy. Sucrose and HFCS are both basically half fructose, and it's that fructose that does the damage. Nutritionally, metabolically, they're the same for all intents and purposes.

It's not being pedantic because the failure to distinguish between various molecules of the same type is what led to all this nutritional misinformation in the first place. There are HUGE differences between molecules of the same type. Hell, prions and black widow venom are "proteins" but they'll kill you FFS.
 
2012-11-29 08:37:25 AM  
Although there is mounting evidence that HFCS is worse for you than sucrose, some of which was already posted, arguing about it is a bit like arguing about whether you should ingest Ricin instead of Polonium-120. Their both poison and even if one is worse you should stay well clear of both.

The American food supply is hopelessly poisoned with billions of advertising dollars have gone into covering that up. Most "food" is pure crap, yet everything in a box proclaims all sorts of misleading nonsense on it. I dread the coming (here already?) "HFCS FREE!!!" label that is inevitable. As if trading out one toxic substance for another makes something healthy. But screw me in the behind, it really does WORK. Baffle people so much that out of confusion they stop trying and just buy your worthless non-food. It is a pandemic in slow motion.

/Seriously though, don't eat either. Stick to food without an ingredients label as much as possible. Grass-fed meat, veggies, and some fruit. If you must each bread make your own. Also make your own condiments (mayo, mustard, ketchup). Don't drink ANY Calories aside from whole milk, that is seriously the #1 reason people get fat. Juice = Soda.
//It is hard and it pisses people off (for some reason), but eventually you kind of lose your taste for really sweet things. Even when I do indulge I can't eat nearly as much as I used to, a couple of squares of sweet chocolate and I don't want any more.
 
2012-11-29 08:46:04 AM  

Kazan: Listen, and understand. Monsanto The American Crystal Sugar Company is out there. It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are morbidly obese.

 
2012-11-29 08:49:19 AM  

EvilEgg: Correlation is not causation


Except for all the times that things are correlated BECAUSE of a causal link...
 
2012-11-29 08:53:04 AM  
Spend some time in the Fark cooking threads and learn how to make real food out of real ingredients that instead of eating processed foods full of chemical crap.

Between crock pots and pressure cookers, you can work full time, cook healthy meals and still have plenty of time to sit on your ass in front of your television, Murica.
 
2012-11-29 08:53:08 AM  

Lunaville: Growing up we couldn't afford many store bought foods. We had a huge garden and everyone was required to help in it. My mother had an enormous freezer that she used to put food up for the year. When she made spaghetti, she started with tomatoes from our garden. There was no sugar of any kind in the sauce. Most commercial spaghetti sauce contains HFCS. The remaining jars contain sugar. I always wonder why? Sugar is not needed in spaghetti sauce.


Masks the acidity if you overcook it.
 
2012-11-29 08:57:00 AM  
oi45.tinypic.com 

He's coming for us!!!
 
2012-11-29 08:59:58 AM  
When will the government stop subsidies for HFCS? I know it will not solve the problem, but it would help.
 
2012-11-29 09:01:26 AM  

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.


The government subsidy of of corn production in this country makes HFCS cheaper than sugar, making the incorporation of evil carby badness more abundant and widespread. This makes HFCS a problem in its own right beyond that of sugar.
 
2012-11-29 09:02:21 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: bestie1


I'll type it slower so you understand.

Corn syrup, cane sugar maple are the same. They are sugar. The argument isn't that excessive sugar causes diabetes. The argument is that MOSANTO BUGA BUGA BUGA.

The US lives longer because we have food and no internal wars. If anything the lack exercise in our jobs is what leads to obesity. Our grandparents ate bacon and chicken grease sandwiches whenever they wanted to because they burned twice the calories we do in a day.

So what do you really want? Do you want to work in a coal mine or subsistence agriculture? You won't make 75 years old doing that. So you want to tell people they can't have the food they want like NY is doing? Do want to artificially raise the prices of food? That one is a slippery slope. Raise the price of corn syrup/corn meal and a fark ton of at risk people aren't going to be able to afford to eat.

What exactly is your plan other than MOSANTO BUGA BUGA BUGA?
 
2012-11-29 09:05:20 AM  
 
2012-11-29 09:06:48 AM  

liam76: Lunaville: Growing up we couldn't afford many store bought foods. We had a huge garden and everyone was required to help in it. My mother had an enormous freezer that she used to put food up for the year. When she made spaghetti, she started with tomatoes from our garden. There was no sugar of any kind in the sauce. Most commercial spaghetti sauce contains HFCS. The remaining jars contain sugar. I always wonder why? Sugar is not needed in spaghetti sauce.

Masks the acidity if you overcook it.


It also covers the fact that the tomatoes are picked unripe. You can't really store ripe tomatoes more than a week or so. You can't transport them when ripe either. They pick them greenish and ship them to wherever. Haven't you ever noticed that garden fresh tomatoes taste nothing like store bought ones? The garden fresh ones have a higher level of sugar naturally because they are ripe. Does it matter at the end of the day though?
 
2012-11-29 09:09:46 AM  

bestie1: liam76: Lunaville: Growing up we couldn't afford many store bought foods. We had a huge garden and everyone was required to help in it. My mother had an enormous freezer that she used to put food up for the year. When she made spaghetti, she started with tomatoes from our garden. There was no sugar of any kind in the sauce. Most commercial spaghetti sauce contains HFCS. The remaining jars contain sugar. I always wonder why? Sugar is not needed in spaghetti sauce.

Masks the acidity if you overcook it.

It also covers the fact that the tomatoes are picked unripe. You can't really store ripe tomatoes more than a week or so. You can't transport them when ripe either. They pick them greenish and ship them to wherever. Haven't you ever noticed that garden fresh tomatoes taste nothing like store bought ones? The garden fresh ones have a higher level of sugar naturally because they are ripe. Does it matter at the end of the day though?


You trying to start a foodie thread?
 
2012-11-29 09:10:17 AM  

dragonchild: Lunaville: Like Dragonchild, I do think that HFCS is metabolized differently.

It's not metabolized differently. The reason why I got grumpy is because ZipSplat went on a Taubes-ian derp-spree about "simple carbs" which equates glucose and fructose when the Japanese diet blows open a HUGE hole in that idiocy. Sucrose and HFCS are both basically half fructose, and it's that fructose that does the damage. Nutritionally, metabolically, they're the same for all intents and purposes.

It's not being pedantic because the failure to distinguish between various molecules of the same type is what led to all this nutritional misinformation in the first place. There are HUGE differences between molecules of the same type. Hell, prions and black widow venom are "proteins" but they'll kill you FFS.


Sorry, I didn't intend to misrepresent your statement. I had interpreted some statements up thread regarding an extra step and I'm blanking out. The thread has gotten long and I doubt anyone will really benefit from me recapping it with my errors in comprehension.
 
2012-11-29 09:10:56 AM  
Gave up soda and fast food about 3 years ago. Started exercising and losing weight. The 1 year ago I quit smoking. What do I have to show for it? Type 2 Diabetes (Just got diagnosed 2 months ago). yipee!!
 
2012-11-29 09:14:34 AM  

EvilEgg: Correlation is not causation


No kidding. Most women in America are gaining weight because my penis isn't in them. Most women in America are gaining weight, and I can conclusively prove my penis isn't in them.

There, I've done a medical study. Give me a million dollars.
 
2012-11-29 09:14:43 AM  

Beta Tested: I dread the coming (here already?) "HFCS FREE!!!" label that is inevitable.


There are several products in the market with that label. They have been around for two or three years and their number keeps increasing. Unfortunately, with processed foods the "sugar free" label is just as suspect. It rarely means sweetener free. Typically it contains aspartame or some form of saccharine.
 
2012-11-29 09:15:34 AM  

freewill: Kazan: Listen, and understand. Monsanto The American Crystal Sugar Company is out there. It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are morbidly obese.


i thought monsanto owned/was closely allied with them.
 
2012-11-29 09:21:19 AM  

BullBearMS: Spend some time in the Fark cooking threads and learn how to make real food out of real ingredients that instead of eating processed foods full of chemical crap.

Between crock pots and pressure cookers, you can work full time, cook healthy meals and still have plenty of time to sit on your ass in front of your television, Murica.


I have a phobia of pressure cookers and won't have one in my house. I accidentally blew one up as a teen. Thankfully, only the dogs and I were in the kitchen at the time and none of us were standing very close to the stove. The dogs had already freaked and started running for the door before it actually blew so they incurred only a few minor burns. I got hit a bit more, but it was still minor. The scary part was that both my parents got home from work while I was still cleaning it up. I was supposed to have supper on the table. Instead, I was wobbling on a stool, stacked in a chair, scraping food off the ceiling with the handle of a broom. I'll eat Death-O's, unheated, out of a can before I use a pressure cooker again.
 
2012-11-29 09:21:28 AM  

SirTanon: [oi45.tinypic.com image 399x192] 

He's coming for us!!!



That was beautiful!

"Ho Ho Ho!"

"Oh oh!"
 
2012-11-29 09:23:15 AM  

Asa Phelps: yeah but the sample size for that study is necessarily limited.



Unlike American's waistlines.
 
2012-11-29 09:24:58 AM  

liam76: bestie1: liam76: Lunaville: Growing up we couldn't afford many store bought foods. We had a huge garden and everyone was required to help in it. My mother had an enormous freezer that she used to put food up for the year. When she made spaghetti, she started with tomatoes from our garden. There was no sugar of any kind in the sauce. Most commercial spaghetti sauce contains HFCS. The remaining jars contain sugar. I always wonder why? Sugar is not needed in spaghetti sauce.

Masks the acidity if you overcook it.

It also covers the fact that the tomatoes are picked unripe. You can't really store ripe tomatoes more than a week or so. You can't transport them when ripe either. They pick them greenish and ship them to wherever. Haven't you ever noticed that garden fresh tomatoes taste nothing like store bought ones? The garden fresh ones have a higher level of sugar naturally because they are ripe. Does it matter at the end of the day though?

You trying to start a foodie thread?


No. I just don't buy sugar source A is different than sugar source B. I'm sure Gaia and captain planet approve more of the sugar from ripened tomatoes than the sugar from ripened corn or sugar cane stocks. It's really different. The tomato sugar has magic earth saving magic.

Seriously look at the whole "OMG orange juice has the peels juiced back in when reconstituted" thing from about 6 months ago. If you have an orange tree in your back yard then great that probably tastes better than anything you can buy during the 1 month a year when you can pick fully ripened oranges.

If all you can do is buy orange juice that was shipped 1000 miles then deal with it. You still have orange juice which a fark ton more than most of the world can say. They pick them greenish and the time in storage degrades the flavor so they add the peels back in to make it taste like oranges again.
 
2012-11-29 09:25:48 AM  

Shyla: But.... "Sugar is sugar!"



EXACTLY!

And alcohol is alcohol.

Now shut up and drink your methanol.
 
2012-11-29 09:26:45 AM  

Kazan: i thought monsanto owned/was closely allied with them.


They are. The point I was attempting to make is that corn subsidies are easy to criticize, but the protectionism for domestic beet farmers that inflates sugar prices in the first place tends to slip out of view. Using the companies as a proxy for that was maybe not the way I should have gone, there.
 
2012-11-29 09:29:59 AM  

GreatGlavinsGhost: 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.

But when food manufacturers add HFCS to everything, then it becomes a problem.

/Read your labels sheeple!


This.

I was surprised to see HFCS in Chef Boyardee ravioli and spagetti. As the king of cheap food, especially for kids, that was a bit of an eye-opener on how much it's in a lot of foods I never thought about.
 
2012-11-29 09:33:26 AM  

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.
 
2012-11-29 09:35:40 AM  

freewill: Kazan: i thought monsanto owned/was closely allied with them.

They are. The point I was attempting to make is that corn subsidies are easy to criticize, but the protectionism for domestic beet farmers that inflates sugar prices in the first place tends to slip out of view. Using the companies as a proxy for that was maybe not the way I should have gone, there.


Ok fine. The US is the second largest producer of beet sugar in the world. So what your really saying is you hate American farmers and love the filthy balls of those French bastards.

Oh by the way: it's still Fructose whether it comes out of beets, sugar cane, corn, watermelon, grapes, or onions. Same chemical and your body breaks it down the same way.
 
2012-11-29 09:37:00 AM  

Dansker: OECD


Citation please.
 
2012-11-29 09:37:39 AM  

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.
 
2012-11-29 09:41:17 AM  

Amos Quito: SirTanon: [oi45.tinypic.com image 399x192] 

He's coming for us!!!


That was beautiful!

"Ho Ho Ho!"

"Oh oh!"


Thank you, thank you..
 
2012-11-29 09:42:13 AM  

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


Citation please.
 
2012-11-29 09:46:09 AM  

andersoncouncil42: Added Sugar is bad for you. ALL of it. That means cane sugar and HFC. The difference between the two is practically nil compared to what they BOTH will do to you when you are talking about the quantities most people consume.


Don't give us any of your both sides are bad shiat... There has never been any stopping in the red zone.

/wait... wut?
 
2012-11-29 09:46:32 AM  

Ehcks: dragonchild: Treating all simple sugars like they're the same molecule is as ignorant as swapping methanol for booze

HFCS is glucose and fructose. Sucrose is glucose and fructose. They ARE the same molecules.


Except that one has a bit extra fructose in it, and no, the body does not treat fructose the same as glucose. Just because there's -ose at the end of something doesn't mean it's the 'same' as another -ose. Some are drastically different.
 
2012-11-29 09:47:58 AM  

HindiDiscoMonster: Don't give us any of your both sides are bad shiat... There has never been any stopping in the red zone.


Oh really, HindiDiscoMonster? Why pretend; we both know perfectly well what this is about. You want me to have an abortion.
 
2012-11-29 09:48:10 AM  
Too bad the article doesn't have more detail, but I think that per capita GDP is a pretty big confounding factor here.

Per capita GDP (CIA world factbook)
Countries with the highest or "relatively high" HFCS consumption
Argentina 17700
Belgium 37800
Bulgaria 13800
Canada 40500
Hungary 19600
Japan 34700
Korea 31200
Mexico 14700
Slovakia 23300
United States 48300
average 28160

Countries "among the lowest HFCS consumers"
Egypt 6500
Finland 36000
Germany 38100
Greece 26300
Poland 20200
Portugal 23400
Serbia 10400
average 22986

The countries with a higher per-capita GDP average tend to use more HFCS. These countries also tend to have more medical resources per person, and I'd expect their diabetics (with better access to insulin and other drugs) to tend to live longer. The researchers used prevalence of diabetes, and diabetics who die quickly tend not to count towards the prevalence of diabetes. There is also the issue that mr_a raised about reporting cases of diabetes in countries with more doctors - I imagine that reporting rates are lower in Egypt and Serbia than in most of the other countries on this list.

Maybe the researchers thought of this ... but it's impossible to tell from what's been shown so far, and so I wouldn't rush to change my eating behavior based on what's been written about this study so far.

/tldr: We could conclude that HFCS causes higher per-capita GDP using the same methodology & results shown in the article.
 
2012-11-29 09:49:43 AM  

Metalithic: GreatGlavinsGhost: 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.

But when food manufacturers add HFCS to everything, then it becomes a problem.

/Read your labels sheeple!

Well, they certainly could lay off it. It seems almost everything has some sort of added sweetener. Soy lecithin bothers me more, though. It adds fat and calories, but doesn't even taste good.


That is why they add the salt & sugar... to make it taste like something other than cardboard
 
2012-11-29 09:52:45 AM  
I wonder if the average HFC = the devil type people know that regular sugar is 50% fructose.

I actually don't wonder, those people tend to be scientific illiterates.
 
2012-11-29 09:53:23 AM  
Am I the only farker who thought that this was an article about hydrofluorocarbons, a.k.a. HFC's?
 
2012-11-29 09:53:44 AM  

bestie1: Ok fine. The US is the second largest producer of beet sugar in the world. So what your really saying is you hate American farmers and love the filthy balls of those French bastards.


Yep, could definitely not give less of a shiat about the lack of demand for American beets in an open market.

Oh by the way: it's still Fructose whether it comes out of beets, sugar cane, corn, watermelon, grapes, or onions. Same chemical and your body breaks it down the same way.

I don't think anyone is claiming that beet sugar is inferior to cane sugar. The point is that the policies meant to keep beet farmers in business drove up the domestic price of sugar and got the ball rolling on the demand for HFCS as an economically viable sugar substitute, not to mention the manufacturing facilities that have left the United States for access to market price sugar, later importing the finished product.

Honestly, aside from the sketchy way we got here, on a personal level, I'm not hugely concerned about the claimed health aspects of HFCS, but I am concerned about the fact that HFCS tastes like sweetened rancid garbage. It takes me a couple of weeks to readjust to the food when I come back to the United States because nearly everything has that weird mouthfeel and lingering aftertaste.
 
2012-11-29 09:56:47 AM  

wildcardjack: SpinStopper: Shyla: But.... "Sugar is sugar!"

Your body doesn't know the .... diff... *thud*


Sugar: The Bitter Truth

Worth your time. Sugar should be a treat, not a staple.


Halfway through this. It is excellent and should be mandatory viewing. Thank you.
 
2012-11-29 10:03:09 AM  

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
 
2012-11-29 10:04:53 AM  

BHShaman: How will the corn industry survive if we continue to criticize;
- Ethanol
- HFCS
- Subsidies


Start growing hemp
 
2012-11-29 10:17:01 AM  

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]


As a medical professional, I get to see the quality of doctors from various countries (or rather their education system). Just a heads up, NEVER get sick in Russia.

The long and short of it, is getting a lot of doctors is "easy" when the entrance requirements are low and graduation not difficult. While I've known my share of awful docs in the US, the US education system is by far the best for MD's.
 
2012-11-29 10:19:45 AM  
Well, it really is the only sensible thing to do.
 
2012-11-29 10:22:35 AM  

flynn80: BHShaman: How will the corn industry survive if we continue to criticize;
- Ethanol
- HFCS
- Subsidies

Start growing hemp


And put it in HFCS free brownies.... maybe made with honey..... mmmmm
 
2012-11-29 10:24:12 AM  

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
 
2012-11-29 10:25:50 AM  

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
 
2012-11-29 10:28:31 AM  
Oh and before you start posting pub med abstracts, read them. My favorite anti HFC article gave people three times the normal amount for a sedentary adult ON TOP of their normal diet, compared it to people who didn't get that extra dose, and then basically claimed HFC's caused an unusual insulin response. Idiotic.
 
2012-11-29 10:29:05 AM  

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.
 
2012-11-29 10:29:33 AM  

freewill: bestie1: Ok fine. The US is the second largest producer of beet sugar in the world. So what your really saying is you hate American farmers and love the filthy balls of those French bastards.

Yep, could definitely not give less of a shiat about the lack of demand for American beets in an open market.

Oh by the way: it's still Fructose whether it comes out of beets, sugar cane, corn, watermelon, grapes, or onions. Same chemical and your body breaks it down the same way.

I don't think anyone is claiming that beet sugar is inferior to cane sugar. The point is that the policies meant to keep beet farmers in business drove up the domestic price of sugar and got the ball rolling on the demand for HFCS as an economically viable sugar substitute, not to mention the manufacturing facilities that have left the United States for access to market price sugar, later importing the finished product.

Honestly, aside from the sketchy way we got here, on a personal level, I'm not hugely concerned about the claimed health aspects of HFCS, but I am concerned about the fact that HFCS tastes like sweetened rancid garbage. It takes me a couple of weeks to readjust to the food when I come back to the United States because nearly everything has that weird mouthfeel and lingering aftertaste.


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.

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.
 
2012-11-29 10:33:27 AM  

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.
 
2012-11-29 10:39:59 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.


What are you talking about. What Science are you quoting? Blah blah blah wave hands say science a few times and magic? In my body magic elves convert HFCS into crack cocaine. They then sell the crack cocaine for eicosanods which are intern converted back to crack because ... why not? The crack is then traded to dwarven masters who create scaled armor for the elves. This armor is sold to for peppermint schnapps and that is then piped directly to my blood stream by the schnapps trolls that live in my kidneys. Now that is a biochemical marvel that I didn't hear about from Deepak Chopra.
 
2012-11-29 10:41:17 AM  

Lunaville: BullBearMS: Spend some time in the Fark cooking threads and learn how to make real food out of real ingredients that instead of eating processed foods full of chemical crap.

Between crock pots and pressure cookers, you can work full time, cook healthy meals and still have plenty of time to sit on your ass in front of your television, Murica.

I have a phobia of pressure cookers and won't have one in my house. I accidentally blew one up as a teen. Thankfully, only the dogs and I were in the kitchen at the time and none of us were standing very close to the stove. The dogs had already freaked and started running for the door before it actually blew so they incurred only a few minor burns. I got hit a bit more, but it was still minor. The scary part was that both my parents got home from work while I was still cleaning it up. I was supposed to have supper on the table. Instead, I was wobbling on a stool, stacked in a chair, scraping food off the ceiling with the handle of a broom. I'll eat Death-O's, unheated, out of a can before I use a pressure cooker again.


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.

If you're the think ahead sort, you could toss the ribs n a crock pot on low and let them go all day while you're at work, but some people just can't seem to think ahead.

Veggies cook in a couple of minutes and taste much, much better than veggies prepared other ways. Heck, you can cook dried beans in half an hour or less depending on the type. Dried lentils cook in just a couple of minutes.
 
2012-11-29 10:41:37 AM  

Metalithic: it is much harder to eat too much fruit than it is too drink too much soda or eat too many Twinkies.


You won't need to worry about eating too many Twinkies anymore - so one problem solved!
 
2012-11-29 10:44:02 AM  

liam76: Magorn: As a newly diagnosed diabetic, let me pass on a tip to all and sundry that I didn't know until too late:

Have your docs check your vitamin D level regularly and supplement them as necessary.

vit.D is hugely important in sensitizing the Insulin receptors in cells, allowing you to use less insulin to do the same job. Most adult who do not work outside are somewhat to severely deficient in it even if they drink Vit D milk (and our obsessive use of sunscreen ain't helping matters either).Therefore Vit D deficiency is a major contributing factor to the onset of Type II diabetes (and may explain why in NA African-Americans have a higher incidence of it even after controlling for all lifestyle factors)

My doc is offering me some hope that with massive Vit D supplements and the low carb diet I'm undertaking I may be able to completely reverse the disease. So for whatever it's worth, get yourselves checked.

How often did/do you exercise?


2-3/times a week, but in a gym so no Vit D. supplementation-this might be why walking sems to have so many health benefits.

As far as weight goes, in my late 20's I was 370, (and that included a daily hour in the gym with at least 45 min of areobic exercise) I dropped that to 285 in 3 months with low carb eating, took a minor break from it and them came back and got it down to about 260 at the lowest) Stopped eating low carb altogather after getting married and having a family, but the majority of the weight stay off for more than a decade (I averaged about 280) I suddenly lost 10lb earlier this year for no good reason (honestly I was eating like crap at the time- got suspicious about that and some numbness in my feet so I went to the doc and found out I'd been diabetic for a while (11.5 A1C, 300 blood sugar)

About 40 days since diagnosis and after one false start witht he meds, I currently take 2mg Glimperimide once a day and the combination of that and keeping my carbs under about 80 a day (so lower carb, but not strict Lo-carb yet-but NO HCFS if I can help it) and my sugars are for the most part very well controlled (little high in th AM than I'd like but that's a common occurance owing to natural biological processes). I've also dropped about 25 lbs so I currently weigh less that anytime since I reached my full adult growth, which can't hurt either.
 
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.
 
2012-11-29 02:05:28 PM  
So, uh, ZipSplat, you seem to have a genuine interest in the outcome of this discussion. How long you been farmin' sugar?

I think you win the post count in this thread, but you don't really offer much in the way of facts and your rebuttals are about as anticdotal as the rest of the posters.

/this post is just a rock that has been thrown through your window. You can throw it back, but I'll be long gone.
 
2012-11-29 02:05:43 PM  

maxheck: Mock26:

But we are free, damn it! I would much rather have a higher risk of the type 2 wilford brimleys than live in some country where you can go to jail for offensive Facebook comments or even get your head cut off for insulting from sheep-farking prophet!

:-D

Is this the sort of thing you... check under your bed every night for?


Nope. I check for it every night on Fark.
 
2012-11-29 02:06:16 PM  

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


And you are biatching when they eat chips?

Eating crap is better than not eating, and as kids, fat isn't your enemy.

If the doc says give them chips, give them farking chips if caloires are a problem.
 
2012-11-29 02:27:31 PM  

Beta Tested: 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.


I love that site! There's lots of farmers around here for all imaginable dairy, fresh, as well as farm raised beef, pork, lamb, chicken, etc. I definitely notice a difference in quality.
 
2012-11-29 02:28:11 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 by-products render insuli ...


Given the effort that took to type, I feel i should take a moment tot hank you for taking the time to post it. Obviously I've been doing a shiatload of research into my disease (type II) and I've never seen things explained quite so concisely. Virtual tip of the hat to you
 
2012-11-29 02:54:34 PM  

dragonchild: Knowledge


Magorn: Given the effort that took to type, I feel i should take a moment tot hank you for taking the time to post it. Obviously I've been doing a shiatload of research into my disease (type II) and I've never seen things explained quite so concisely. Virtual tip of the hat to you.

Yeah, nice to see some knowledge up in this joint. Thanks for the effort.

You get a cookie apple wedges gluten-free melba toast with unflavored soy paste!
 
2012-11-29 03:38:15 PM  

born_yesterday: dragonchild: Knowledge

Magorn: Given the effort that took to type, I feel i should take a moment tot hank you for taking the time to post it. Obviously I've been doing a shiatload of research into my disease (type II) and I've never seen things explained quite so concisely. Virtual tip of the hat to you.

Yeah, nice to see some knowledge up in this joint. Thanks for the effort.

You get a cookie apple wedges gluten-free melba toast with unflavored soy paste!


Sigh... All that, and you gave him carbs...

What's wrong with a nice juicy steak?
 
2012-11-29 04:05:35 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 ...


It was mentioned already, but I'm going to say it too.

THANK YOU for putting this so eloquently and clearly. I read an article in Men's Health many years ago that outlined much of the same material.. it was very eye-opening..

..now a short CSB:

After I read that article, I decided to do a little experiment. I cut all (or at least as much as realistically possible) of the HFCS out of my diet. Ate the same amounts (and when possible types) of food and drink as normal, but chose options that were free of HFCS. For sodas, I switched from normal sugary sodas to diets. Same with juices like cranberry, apple, etc.. ketchup, etc..
I ate at the same times whenever possible.

2 weeks later, I had lost 12 pounds, and I felt MUCH more energetic.

Made a believer out of me. HFCS is HORRIBLE for you..



Oh yeah, because I don't think it was mentioned before, I'll add this:

HFCS does NOT occur in nature. That video with the woman walking through the corn field talking about how corn sugar is no different from other sugars is wrong on so many levels.

Corn Syrup =/= HFCS

An interesting Video on HFCS
 
2012-11-29 04:12:58 PM  

violentsalvation: No sh*t.


AND we're done here folks, last one turn off the light.
 
2012-11-29 04:18:10 PM  

ZipSplat: 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?"


I take it you are completely unable to use Google? Are you arguing the the exact precision of my language? Perhaps I should have said preliminary. Either way you are still wrong.

Press Release

Abstract

Corrigendum
 
2012-11-29 04:27:15 PM  
Was having a hard time finding this, but finally located it.. I don't know if it's 100% accurate, but I trust Alton, and it's interesting, at the very least.

Skip forward to 3:30 for the pertinent science
 
2012-11-29 04:35:21 PM  

Magorn: As a newly diagnosed diabetic, let me pass on a tip to all and sundry that I didn't know until too late:

Have your docs check your vitamin D level regularly and supplement them as necessary.

vit.D is hugely important in sensitizing the Insulin receptors in cells, allowing you to use less insulin to do the same job. Most adult who do not work outside are somewhat to severely deficient in it even if they drink Vit D milk (and our obsessive use of sunscreen ain't helping matters either).Therefore Vit D deficiency is a major contributing factor to the onset of Type II diabetes (and may explain why in NA African-Americans have a higher incidence of it even after controlling for all lifestyle factors)

My doc is offering me some hope that with massive Vit D supplements and the low carb diet I'm undertaking I may be able to completely reverse the disease. So for whatever it's worth, get yourselves checked.


in the same boat - concur completely

will only offer caution in using Vit D - it is possible to take too much & unbalance your system in the other direction (scientific diagnosis ya?) like anything else.

/sugar is the devil
 
2012-11-29 04:49:44 PM  

SirTanon: 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 ...

It wa ...


Interesting, purely ancedotal story:

about a month ago i went to a very swanky wedding of a wife's realtive at a resort in SC. This was about 1 month + after my diagnosis and low carb eating changes. Since I figured this was a once in a lifetime event, (they dropped AT LEAST $150K on this shindig) I decided that for this weekend alone i wasn;t going to stint myself and then I 'd deal with consequnces afterward. The BBQ the night before the weedding featured home made souther delicacies like fried chicken, home-made mac and cheese, and peach cobbler with on-premises home-made icecream. The reception proper featured things like risotto and the best from-scatch wedding cake I'd ever tasted, and the farewell brunch included scatch-bake waffles, fresh cinnamon bread, etc

and I ate all of it. not in ridiculous or over indulgent quantities, but not like a monk either. I fully expceted my sugars to go crazy eating like that, but you know what? They stayed at the EXACT same, pretty good, levels they had the week before when I was low carbing exclusively.

The one time they DID Spike? When I got cocky based on those good results on the car trip home and had a donut and some doritos.

FWIW it seems that hand-made food is better, atleast for me, than the processed crap
 
2012-11-29 05:35:27 PM  

Magorn:

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, ....


I'll tell you what. Show me a picture of any POW camp where the prisoners are rail thin except for the one guy with a gland problem....

Reducing calories will generally result in weight loss. You just have to reduce *enough*.
 
2012-11-29 05:43:27 PM  
I'm asking my doctor to prescribe a dose of 3rd world poverty to help keep me healthy.
 
2012-11-29 05:54:08 PM  
Seriously, this "sugar is sugar" mantra reminds

Magorn: 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.


Seriously, if there's one thing I've learned from Fark it's how many "experts" seemingly have all of the human body's seemingly infinite metabolic nuances boiled down 5-7 word platitudes.

Sughur iz Sughurz!!!1111
 
2012-11-29 06:06:13 PM  
Thanks for the thanks. I do have to make one correction, though. I said "fructose can't be coverted to glycogen". This is false. It can be, in the liver, but the biochemical threshold for doing so is when the liver's glycogen levels are depleted. But remember the liver makes both glucose (from fat) AND glycogen (from the glucose it made), so this is not a normal state. Lustig was vague here, but the example he used was "if you just ran a marathon". So after a long day of farm work or hours of sports your body can take in fructose rather harmlessly, but you can see how this is a HUGE exception to the rule. Does mere hunger have the same effect? I'm not sure, but I wouldn't count on it.
 
2012-11-29 06:13:34 PM  

IPKnightly: Magorn:

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, ....

I'll tell you what. Show me a picture of any POW camp where the prisoners are rail thin except for the one guy with a gland problem....

Reducing calories will generally result in weight loss. You just have to reduce *enough*.


Everyone who has ever amputed a limb has probably lost weight too, it's still a pretty retarded way to approach the subject if you want to be pragmatic about it.
 
2012-11-29 06:22:08 PM  

IPKnightly: I'll tell you what. Show me a picture of any POW camp where the prisoners are rail thin except for the one guy with a gland problem....

Reducing calories will generally result in weight loss. You just have to reduce *enough*.


Yeah, but starvation in a POW camp is not a healthy or pleasant way to lose weight. It's not all the same. Some foods make the body store energy fat. Some foods get right in line to be burned as energy. And abstaining from some foods changes the way you experience cravings and hunger, as well as the signal to stop eating.

Telling someone that has had trouble losing weight by pointing to "successful results" in people who have been subject to involuntary starvation is a terrible example. Starving people aren't healthy, and a body that's forced to consume itself for energy isn't a healthy body.
 
2012-11-29 06:40:41 PM  

Magorn: Interesting, purely ancedotal story:




I once went backpacking through Southeast Asia for 9 months with my girlfriend of the time. Did nothing but consume huge quanities of sugar (beer, rice, noodles, sweets). Lived like a sedentary beach bum laying out in the sun all day long like a beached walrus. Melted off weight like I've never experienced before in my life. My girlfriend at the time lived the same exact lifestyle had the exact opposite reaction ... put on lots of weight quickly.

Came back home with a renewed lease on life and vowed to life a healthier lifestyle. Gave up drinking. Started eating super healthy and in smaller quantities. Walked and took public transportation everywhere. Went to the gym 4-5 times a week and hired a trainer. Still gained all the weight back. My girlfriend once again lived the same exact lifestyle and lost all the weight gained in Asia.

That was a pretty significant eye opening event for me that the human metabolism is amazingly complex equation of hormones, enzymes and metabolic processes. Yeah, there are some basic common sense guidelines you can follow in regards to calories in vs. calories out, but I'm pretty well convinced that we'll look back in these times 70 to 80 years from now as the dark ages of understanding the human metabolic process. The funny thing on weight loss is everyone believes themselves to be an expert. Most people will readily admit they're not an astrophysicist or theoretical mathematician, but people who don't know a pentose phosphate pathway from a penthouse playmate believes themselves to be a amateur PhD in biochem because they read the South Beach Diet.
 
2012-11-29 06:56:34 PM  

EmmaLou: How about not putting sugar in every damned food product on the market? At this point I'm not even surprised when sugar or HFCS shows up on a random food label. It's craziness. That's why we have more of the diabeetus.


Even canned baked beans have sugar added.
 
2012-11-29 06:57:49 PM  

wendolynne: Countries that use a lot of HFCS are countries where people eat a lot of processed food. People who eat processed food have little control over the nutritional value of the foods they eat. They are at the mercy of processed food industries which add sweeteners to increase market share. Whether that sweetener is HFCS, cane sugar or something else is mostly dictated by economics as well.

who says you cannot eat money?


Lots of processed food in the UK and Australia but very little HFCS. Lots of cane sugar though, and lots of obesity and diabetes.
 
2012-11-29 06:59:23 PM  

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.


It is interesting that some people seem to be resistant to diabetes though. I know some very fat people with normal blood sugar levels.
 
2012-11-29 07:01:04 PM  

Mock26: But we are free, damn it! I would much rather have a higher risk of the type 2 wilford brimleys than live in some country where you can go to jail for offensive Facebook comments or even get your head cut off for insulting from sheep-farking prophet!

:-D


I would rather live in a country where freedom of speech exists but is limited to not inciting violence or hatred.
 
2012-11-29 07:14:38 PM  

kg2095: It is interesting that some people seem to be resistant to diabetes though. I know some very fat people with normal blood sugar levels.


The opposite happens too, skinny people with severe metabolic disorder and diabetes. It seems that obesity is a symptom of metabolic disorder, not the cause. Like many diseases not all symptoms manifest in all people.
 
2012-11-29 07:33:29 PM  

kg2095: EmmaLou: How about not putting sugar in every damned food product on the market? At this point I'm not even surprised when sugar or HFCS shows up on a random food label. It's craziness. That's why we have more of the diabeetus.

Even canned baked beans have sugar added.


And you wouldnt make baked beans with molasses or something?
 
2012-11-29 08:27:03 PM  

dragonchild: CheatCommando: known liver response to fructose is different than it is to sucrose

The liver doesn't see sucrose. Sucrose is either hydrolyzed in the stomach or broken down by intestinal enzymes. When you consume sucrose, half the caloric energy winds up as fructose in the liver.

Nutritionally, the only real difference between fructose and sucrose, in terms of fructose load, is concentration.


[cotation needed]
 
2012-11-29 08:44:01 PM  

kg2095: It is interesting that some people seem to be resistant to diabetes though. I know some very fat people with normal blood sugar levels.


Perhaps you know me, then....
 
2012-11-29 10:18:15 PM  

Bill_Wick's_Friend: TFA notes that Canada's HFCS use is "up there" but gives no actual figure for comparison. I can't see how it could be too high since I don't see HFCS listed as an ingredient in any products. It's not in ketchup, soda, candy bars, prepared sauces etc etc the way it seems to be in the USA.

Maybe I just don't buy crappy enough food.


If you do a quick study you will frind that countries with socialized healthcare and an interest in keeping their citizens healthy do not allow most of the bullsh*t that is in the products for the US.
Weird coincidences - Fewer carcinogens = fewer health issues and less time in a doctor's office.
Non profit medicne vs. socialized medicne.
Do the maths yourselves.
 
2012-11-29 11:21:41 PM  
Skip the ice cream until your kid agrees to eat something healthy (veggie-wise).

You want them to eat veggies? Make stew. Slow cook it in a crock pot until all the noise and crunchiness is gone from the veggies. That way, the veggies don't act like veggies and everything tastes meaty.
 
2012-11-29 11:25:40 PM  

Strik3r: How long you been farmin' sugar?


That's right. It's always a conspiracy. If Glenn Beck hath taught us anything, it is that there are no controversies surrounding us, only conspiracies against us.
 
2012-11-29 11:34:11 PM  

Beta Tested: I take it you are completely unable to use Google?


Like on any politically charged issue - no, one cannot simply "use Google" to figure out the state of the science on HFCS.
 
2012-11-30 12:10:56 AM  

kg2095: Mock26: But we are free, damn it! I would much rather have a higher risk of the type 2 wilford brimleys than live in some country where you can go to jail for offensive Facebook comments or even get your head cut off for insulting from sheep-farking prophet!

:-D

I would rather live in a country where freedom of speech exists but is limited to not inciting violence or hatred.


Actually, inciting violence is NOT protected by the first amendment. As for hatred, I am glad that it is protected. That which is most offensive deserves to be protected the most. And so long as they are not inciting violence, let them say whatever the Hades they want to say.
 
2012-11-30 12:54:31 AM  

Mock26: kg2095: Mock26: But we are free, damn it! I would much rather have a higher risk of the type 2 wilford brimleys than live in some country where you can go to jail for offensive Facebook comments or even get your head cut off for insulting from sheep-farking prophet!

:-D

I would rather live in a country where freedom of speech exists but is limited to not inciting violence or hatred.

Actually, inciting violence is NOT protected by the first amendment. As for hatred, I am glad that it is protected. That which is most offensive deserves to be protected the most. And so long as they are not inciting violence, let them say whatever the Hades they want to say.


A genuine question: why do you think that allowing hate speech is a good thing?
 
2012-11-30 01:51:31 AM  

kg2095: Mock26: kg2095: Mock26: But we are free, damn it! I would much rather have a higher risk of the type 2 wilford brimleys than live in some country where you can go to jail for offensive Facebook comments or even get your head cut off for insulting from sheep-farking prophet!

:-D

I would rather live in a country where freedom of speech exists but is limited to not inciting violence or hatred.

Actually, inciting violence is NOT protected by the first amendment. As for hatred, I am glad that it is protected. That which is most offensive deserves to be protected the most. And so long as they are not inciting violence, let them say whatever the Hades they want to say.

A genuine question: why do you think that allowing hate speech is a good thing?


Because if its banned, who gets to define "hate speech"?
 
2012-11-30 02:20:25 AM  

kg2095: Mock26: kg2095: Mock26: But we are free, damn it! I would much rather have a higher risk of the type 2 wilford brimleys than live in some country where you can go to jail for offensive Facebook comments or even get your head cut off for insulting from sheep-farking prophet!

:-D

I would rather live in a country where freedom of speech exists but is limited to not inciting violence or hatred.

Actually, inciting violence is NOT protected by the first amendment. As for hatred, I am glad that it is protected. That which is most offensive deserves to be protected the most. And so long as they are not inciting violence, let them say whatever the Hades they want to say.

A genuine question: why do you think that allowing hate speech is a good thing?


Because to limit hate speech is censorship, and except for issues such as National Security and the StarGate Program, the government, in my opinion, has no place in censoring anything. And as Cyno01 asked, who then defines what is to be censored? I really do not like the idea of someone telling me that I cannot say something simply because they do not like what I have to say. Nor would I presume to tell someone else that they cannot say something because I do not like it. The rights of the minority are just as important than those of the majority, especially in a system of government that relies so heavily on democratic voting. Now do not get me wrong, I am not against self control and I do firmly believe that just because I can say something does not necessarily mean that I should say it. But, that is a decision that has to be made by each and every person. It should not be made by others, especially the government.
 
2012-11-30 04:27:54 AM  

Mock26: Actually, inciting violence is NOT protected by the first amendment.


Actually, advocating for violence and even advocating for violent revolt against the government itself is protected first amendment speech, according to the Supreme Court.

In Brandenburg vs. Ohio a KKK member was filmed giving a speech which abstractly threatened violence against those who opposed the KKK and he was later sentenced to ten years in prison.

The conviction was later overturned by the Supreme Court on first amendment grounds.

The U.S. Supreme Court reversed Brandenburg's conviction, holding that government cannot constitutionally punish abstract advocacy of force or law violation.

What gets you in trouble is incitement of immanent violence. As in, "Everybody grab a knife and let's stab that guy to death right now!"
 
2012-11-30 04:37:00 AM  

BullBearMS: Mock26: Actually, inciting violence is NOT protected by the first amendment.

Actually, advocating for violence and even advocating for violent revolt against the government itself is protected first amendment speech, according to the Supreme Court.

In Brandenburg vs. Ohio a KKK member was filmed giving a speech which abstractly threatened violence against those who opposed the KKK and he was later sentenced to ten years in prison.

The conviction was later overturned by the Supreme Court on first amendment grounds.

The U.S. Supreme Court reversed Brandenburg's conviction, holding that government cannot constitutionally punish abstract advocacy of force or law violation.

What gets you in trouble is incitement of immanent violence. As in, "Everybody grab a knife and let's stab that guy to death right now!"


That is what I meant, but I did not clearly state it. Thanks for explaining it better than I did.
 
2012-11-30 12:06:13 PM  

This text is now purple: 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.


The government subsidy of it does...
 
2012-11-30 01:59:15 PM  

Samwise Gamgee: This text is now purple: 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.

The government subsidy of it does...


And the tariffs on sugar.
 
Displayed 240 of 240 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report