High Fructose Corn Syrup is making Americans hefty
Jun 25, 2009 at 8:12 PM Post #63 of 118

ericj

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Aug 2, 2005
Posts
8,262
Likes
148
Quote:

Originally Posted by milkweg /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Yea, I read a National Geographic article some years back about potatoes and this guy survived on just potatoes and a little lemon juice in his water perfectly fine for one year.


We are approximately the ultimate omnivore. There's very few things that we absolutely have to eat, and only a few things we can't eat.

Dogs and some birds have it all over us as far as eating rotting flesh, but dogs and birds can't eat alkaloids like caffeine, theobromine in chocolate, etc. It's poison for them.

Sodium benzoate is a good preservative because most animals and microbes can't eat it and live. We can. Benzine is still poison for sure, but we (and most apes and monkeys) have a higher tolerance than most.

Rodents can eat a lot of stuff too, but they have to eat vitamin K or they die. We can synthesize our own vitamin K to an extent. So can birds, iirc.

So our imperatives come down to calories, electrolytes, fats, and a smattering of vitamins and minerals.

We crave things that are starchy, salty, sweet, or fatty - or tart - because we're genetically programmed to seek these things out because we need them to live.

And some of us are genetically programmed to pack on energy reserves in the form of fat in case of a time of famine.
 
Jun 25, 2009 at 8:24 PM Post #64 of 118

Billyk

500+ Head-Fier
Joined
Oct 18, 2005
Posts
567
Likes
10
Notice the bit about lemon juice. The human body is on of the very few organisms that cannot produce it's own vitamin C. No vitamin C, we die... Wierd stuff evolution.
 
Jun 25, 2009 at 9:28 PM Post #65 of 118

GreatDane

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Sep 11, 2005
Posts
12,470
Likes
34
Location
Virginia
Quote:

Originally Posted by Uncle Erik /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I can't find it now, but there was a study released this year that demonstrated that all weight loss diets work insofar as they reduce calories.

I'm fairly convinced that calories are the major culprit in weight gain and loss...



Bingo! I agree. It's certainly not rocket science. I will add that it's very important to add exercise to a restricted calorie plan for quickest results.

It's obvious that you've put a lot of effort into your weight loss and I know that it takes a lot of discipline.
 
Jun 25, 2009 at 10:34 PM Post #66 of 118

milkweg

Banned
Joined
Aug 14, 2007
Posts
2,840
Likes
15
Quote:

Originally Posted by QQQ /img/forum/go_quote.gif
If you 6'5", yeah, if 6'0'' - not so much.


I'm 6'3" and am naturally quite muscular and large boned. If I was a boxer I would be a heavyweight. I can carry 260 lbs. and not look fat. When I was 17 I weighed 208 llbs. and looked quite slim.
 
Jun 25, 2009 at 11:42 PM Post #67 of 118

bigrigdog

New Head-Fier
Joined
May 5, 2006
Posts
26
Likes
10
I'll jump in here since I've had serious weight issues through high school.

1. American culture now tolerates obesity compared to 50 years ago. It wasn't long ago that the morbidly obese were openly ridiculed and viewed as an unsightly minority. Bill Cosby's original 1950's Fat Albert stand-up routine, if anyone remembers, is polar opposite of PC.

2. The skinny kids and average weight adults seen in the Woodstock documentary were close to the depression and WWII culture of food conservation and rationing. Food was also more expensive coming out of the postwar era. Food became less expensive with mass production and streamlined shippng logistics, leading to increased portion sizes.

3. HFCS and transfats are not killers. HFCS that passes through digestive enzymes are the same as table sugar. Transfats lose the cis-isomer in their glycerol molecule head, and mostly revert to an unsaturated state. I would be more concerned with the quantity of antibiotics and fat soluble hormones that are present in livestock in the few weeks approaching slaughter.

4. Intake is the key- and it doesn't just stop at caloric intake vs. metabolic output. Elevated blood sugar levels (doesn't matter if it's HFCS or table sugar) throw off the liver and pancreas' ability to regulate healthy insulin levels. Sugary processed foods without any supplemental dietary fiber put one's insulin production on roller coaster.

Most members of my mom's immediate family are or were diabetic. I choose to eat a simple sugar restricted diet so I can stave off diabetes in my later years.

5. Might as well throw out the USDA food pyramid as well. It was a wheat grower's lobby marketing campaign in the 70's.
 
Jun 26, 2009 at 2:51 AM Post #68 of 118

Spareribs

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
May 24, 2006
Posts
5,557
Likes
548
Quote:

Originally Posted by bigrigdog /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I'll jump in here since I've had serious weight issues through high school.

1. American culture now tolerates obesity compared to 50 years ago. It wasn't long ago that the morbidly obese were openly ridiculed and viewed as an unsightly minority. Bill Cosby's original 1950's Fat Albert stand-up routine, if anyone remembers, is polar opposite of PC.

2. The skinny kids and average weight adults seen in the Woodstock documentary were close to the depression and WWII culture of food conservation and rationing. Food was also more expensive coming out of the postwar era. Food became less expensive with mass production and streamlined shippng logistics, leading to increased portion sizes.

3. HFCS and transfats are not killers. HFCS that passes through digestive enzymes are the same as table sugar. Transfats lose the cis-isomer in their glycerol molecule head, and mostly revert to an unsaturated state. I would be more concerned with the quantity of antibiotics and fat soluble hormones that are present in livestock in the few weeks approaching slaughter.

4. Intake is the key- and it doesn't just stop at caloric intake vs. metabolic output. Elevated blood sugar levels (doesn't matter if it's HFCS or table sugar) throw off the liver and pancreas' ability to regulate healthy insulin levels. Sugary processed foods without any supplemental dietary fiber put one's insulin production on roller coaster.

Most members of my mom's immediate family are or were diabetic. I choose to eat a simple sugar restricted diet so I can stave off diabetes in my later years.

5. Might as well throw out the USDA food pyramid as well. It was a wheat grower's lobby marketing campaign in the 70's.



Great post. IMO, the American food companies are similar to the tobacco industry. They re selling some dangerous stuff that can cause cancer. American food in many ways is terrible. But I am hopefull and believe that there is hope for the future. Food in America is generally some seriously horrible crap but it is slowly getting better. My local supermarkets are improving with a better selection of organic products. Hooray!
 
Jun 26, 2009 at 4:11 AM Post #69 of 118

dallan

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Posts
7,040
Likes
116
Who isn't worried about the antibiotics and hormones in livestock, let alone the fact that they store that and all the pesticides they have taken in in their reproductive(milk/cheese)organs and fat/muscle tissue...which is what is eaten.
That doesn't deflect from the fact that the amount of HFCS in food is alarming. In addition as i said before from what i understand it effects (inhibits) the part of your brain that tells you that you are full thus you eat more. Still no comments about the fact that it is a free radical? Maybe the idea of free radicals are not mainstream yet in a lot of the country.
 
Jun 26, 2009 at 6:14 AM Post #70 of 118

milkweg

Banned
Joined
Aug 14, 2007
Posts
2,840
Likes
15
I know a bit about free radicals and that's what some superfoods are supposed to counteract but there is no scientific evidence proving it so it is mostly conjecture. Eating superfoods is still a wise choice though as they are densely packed with nutrients and are low in calories. Just don't expect life rejuvenating miracles from them as some pseudo scientisits claim.

I first learned about free radicals and oxidization when the lower valves in my legs stopped fully functioning (over ten years ago) and now cause occasional venous stasis resulting in ankle ulcerations due to perforated veins. Som edoctors don't know much about this subject even and I have had to educate one fully on my condition because he didn't beleive what I was telling him. Even though it was a hands and limbs specialist who first discovered what my condition is due to. My condition is genetic anyway so no superfoods will cure it.
 
Jun 26, 2009 at 6:29 AM Post #71 of 118

dallan

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Posts
7,040
Likes
116
Bummer, sorry to hear that. Well you do what you can with what you have.

As far as food, I liked what i read in Eat Right 4 Your Type, he said approach food like medicine.

It is what you take into your body not a fix like an addict to get the best or most rewarding temporary feeling.
 
Jun 26, 2009 at 2:41 PM Post #72 of 118

rangen

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Posts
171
Likes
13
Quote:

Originally Posted by dallan /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Still no comments about the fact that it is a free radical? Maybe the idea of free radicals are not mainstream yet in a lot of the country.


I didn't comment because my comment would have been what I thought on reading it: "either that's not true, or my understanding of what a free radical is is really wrong." I thought that free radicals were, by definition, highly reactive, and I don't see how to make that fit with HFCS' long shelf life.

Googling a bit, I do see an article pointing to a small scale study with some information about a chain of causality that could lead to an increase in free radicals in the human body with a diet very high in HFCS. However, it doesn't give numbers, nor comparisons to other activities and diets.

But I don't see anything suggesting that HFCS is itself a free radical, and would welcome a link that explained how that can be.
 
Jun 26, 2009 at 5:23 PM Post #73 of 118

ericj

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Aug 2, 2005
Posts
8,262
Likes
148
Quote:

Originally Posted by dallan /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Who isn't worried about the antibiotics and hormones in livestock, let alone the fact that they store that and all the pesticides they have taken in in their reproductive(milk/cheese)organs and fat/muscle tissue...which is what is eaten.


I'm not particularly worried.

If an animal has a serious bacterial infection it should receive an antibiotic treatment, and it should not be slaughtered until after the antibiotics are out of it's system.

I'd rather have neither, but I'll take antibiotics over infectious bacteria seven days a week and twice on sunday. If antibiotics are being administered indiscriminately or livestock is being slaughtered at inappropriate times, you'd do well to make arguments against abuse of antibiotics in livestock.

I also don't think there's a widespread problem of livestock being raised on pesticide-soaked feed.

I also specifically don't have a problem with livestock that are sprayed or dipped in chemicals that keep the ticks off them. Skin does a pretty good job of keeping stuff out, and i don't make a habit of eating leather. Remember, it would not be logical to use these chemicals if the animals didn't benefit from them.

I am opposed to organically-raised beef. I won't eat it. It's inhumane to deny care to a sick animal or to let it be eaten alive by ticks, and neither of those dogma produce a safer or higher quality meat.

If you lose sleep over hormone treatments in livestock, you haven't done the math with regard to how many doses are sold each year and how many head of cattle there are. And I'm guessing you don't know what they're for or when they're administered.


Quote:

That doesn't deflect from the fact that the amount of HFCS in food is alarming.



The amount of sugar in food is alarming. It's just as alarming if it's cane sugar or beet sugar or honey or HFCS.


Quote:

In addition as i said before from what i understand it effects (inhibits) the part of your brain that tells you that you are full thus you eat more.



If that's true, it's true for sucrose too. I don't think it's true. I think you're confusing it with some poorly substantiated research on non-caloric artificial sweeteners.


Quote:

Still no comments about the fact that it is a free radical? Maybe the idea of free radicals are not mainstream yet in a lot of the country.



Because it's not a free radical.

If you want to talk about the carbonyls that are created by the process that turns corn starch into corn syrup, that's another question that has nothing to do with anything called a free radical.

I also wouldn't be offended if the feds decided to require that corn syrup can only be manufactured with food-grade caustic soda, and then classified causitc soda as being food-grade only when manufactured without the use of mercury. I don't think this would present any hardship to either the corn syrup or caustic soda industries because the mercury cell process for producing caustic soda is not widely used.

At the same time, I'd bet there's more mercury in a 6oz can of tuna than a 1 gallon jug of corn syrup - but i'm generally in favor of not applying mercury where applying it can be avoided.
 
Jun 26, 2009 at 5:51 PM Post #74 of 118

cerbie

1000+ Head-Fier
Joined
Mar 12, 2005
Posts
1,219
Likes
12
Quote:

Originally Posted by bigrigdog /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I'll jump in here since I've had serious weight issues through high school.

1. American culture now tolerates obesity compared to 50 years ago. (...)

2. The skinny kids and average weight adults seen in the Woodstock documentary were close to the depression and WWII culture of food conservation and rationing. (...)

3. HFCS and transfats are not killers. (...)

4. Intake is the key- and it doesn't just stop at caloric intake vs. metabolic output. (...)

5. Might as well throw out the USDA food pyramid as well. It was a wheat grower's lobby marketing campaign in the 70's.



1. 60s? Weren't there dinosaurs, then?
wink.gif


2. ...is also affected by the kind of food that the processed food is. There are simpler starches, and much less fiber, on average, on top of less useful fiber when it is there. Eating foods more similar to the older foods will get you full much quicker (in terms of calories), and give you much more energy. More concisely: portion sizes are self-correcting. Eat foods with a bunch of natural starches and fiber, and you won't eat as much. OTOH, sitting in a cubicle all day will still be doing wonders for your health.

3. I'll have to just disagree. Like global warming, there are enough agenda papers and people on both sides that we can both cherry-pick on HFCS. If it can cause any effects that are different than table sugar, then it does not get processed the same way (everything from what you smell in it to how it comes out the other end matters). Even the corn industry shills admit that it does act as a flavor enhancer, which will tend to make you want to eat more of it (or what it's in). I'll leave the hydrogenated fats (some natural trans fats are actually good for you) with: Trans fat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Heart disease sort of kills, and it was these fats that were championed for a very long time as heart-healthy. Go food industry.

4. ...which is the reason HFCS, among other things (MSG, in all its names), can be so bad, as they cause you to be fooled as to what a proper intake is. They also make you feel more satisfied with food that does not taste good, while also making you like real good food less, because it lacks that "wow factor" from sugar, salt, and flavor enhancers.

5. We did! Now we have one that's even less useful!
icon10.gif
The FDA has proven itself to be an industry front first, citizen health protector second, every time we give it a chance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dallan
Who isn't worried about the antibiotics and hormones in livestock, let alone the fact that they store that and all the pesticides they have taken in in their reproductive(milk/cheese)organs and fat/muscle tissue...which is what is eaten.


I can't stand beef, some chicken, and many cheeses (I mean, I love cheese, but will find one brand unappetizing, or eat it and get a reaction of some kind), these days. I've often wondered if that has something to do with it, but haven't felt like paying $10-20/lb for 'properly raised' livestock, or more for gourmet cheeses, to find out. Going vegetarian and supplementing B would be a lot cheaper!

Quote:

In addition as i said before from what i understand it effects (inhibits) the part of your brain that tells you that you are full thus you eat more.


Practically all flavor enhancers do this.
Quote:

Still no comments about the fact that it is a free radical? Maybe the idea of free radicals are not mainstream yet in a lot of the country.


Just eating things that quickly become them may not be good, but they also get created by your body's normal functioning. I don't know about HFCS "being" one, but I'm pretty sure basically all simple sugars are bad, in terms of excess free radicals being made and not taken care of. Eating multiple forms of A & E (IE, raw fruit and veggies that we never eat enough of, nasty-but-good-for-you cod liver oil, etc.--the ones from plants and animals are basically impossible to take too much of), and getting plenty of C (the common synthetic forms are identical to the natural ones, and cheaper) is probably the best way to handle that, from what I know of what our current diets tend to really lack in.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ericj /img/forum/go_quote.gif
If antibiotics are being administered indiscriminately or livestock is being slaughtered at inappropriate times, you'd do well to make arguments against abuse of antibiotics in livestock.


That is the argument. That livestock are kept alive by these things, but never remotely healthy, and there's still plenty of it in their systems when slaughtered or milked (with high doses, some it will never go away, and it will increase the need for re-use, since good bacteria will get killed, too). Not to say every farm does this, but that there's no way to look on a package of meat or dairy and tell (beyond added growth hormone, which makes for absolutely nasty milk), and that it is basically a requirement for the mass production of very cheap meat.

About neglecting animals for the sake of an Organic certification, I wholly agree, and only worry about Organic for a small selection of foods [size=xx-small](where it either matters to me in terms of health, or I think I might otherwise be supporting Monsanto, Bayer, etc.)[/size]. Without being exceptionally rich, or running a small farm, you have to compromise [size=xx-small](I know I'm supporting those companies eating the meat I do, but I'm not ready to go without, at this point)[/size].

Given that mercury has been in our diets for ages, rarely causes problems as part of diet, and there's at least some evidence that a good diet allows us to get rid of it and/or store it away, I'll take my chances with domestic fish. Here's what some quick Googling found. What I'd read before was Japanese (salmon, tuna, and mackerel are major parts of their traditional diets).
 
Jun 26, 2009 at 6:10 PM Post #75 of 118

revolink24

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Jan 12, 2008
Posts
2,881
Likes
43
Wooo I just love hearing about Woodstock. Basically because it's just down the road from here. /random post
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top