The Coca Cola Conspiracy: The secret cause for the U.S. obesity epidemic

Originally posted by dr treg

The abnormal immune response could be due to excessive amounts of a substance in the body e.g. sugar, salt, fat. There are several immune markers which are increased in obesity.

Inflammation.

At a recent lecture on gastric bypass surgery the lecturer said that they are starting to find abnormalities in the front of the brain or frontal lobes on head scans of obese people. The frontal lobes are who we are and tend to put the brakes on obessional behavior i.e. overeating.

That's interesting. I think people need to start realizing that physiological processes are actually causing these obsessive behaviors. The body does a very nice job at subconsciously regulating caloric intake by controlling energy levels (making one hungry, tired, excess energy, etc.).

It could be that the fructose in Coca-Cola is causing an abnormal immune reaction in the brain combined with a lack of a leptin response.

Well, the effects that fructose has on insulin probably play a huge role in causing leptin resistance. That would explain any inhibition of leptin response. We know the obese actually have high leptin levels, contrary to what researchers expected, which suggests there is, in fact, leptin resistance occurring. If leptin receptor sites are active, then leptin can't do its job.

reply to post by fulllotusqigong


What was the point of replying with nothing but a video?

reply to post by fulllotusqigong

I know people that eat sugar out of the sugar bowl but how much sugar people put in their drinks has nothing to do with the results of the Princeton study.
Female Rats given:
Water 177%
HFCS in water available for 12-h 183%
Sucrose in water 183%

That is a measly 6% between water and sugary drinks and no difference between HFCS and sucrose. TG for the 12-h group where the same as the water group.

There were no controlled chow groups in the male experiment so who nows what that would have looked like. What really makes a difference is the amount of food avialable. Of course they don't focus on that but it is something that should be considered.

Of course the rats can't read labels but humans can but if what dr teg posted is true that:

patients who had lost significant weight after gastric bypass told their doctor that they had lied about their food intake although they believed their lies at the time.

then not being honest with the amount of food your actually consuming probably is a bigger cause.

Originally posted by k1k1to
reply to post by fulllotusqigong

 

what about all the fat people that arent "genetically" pre disposed to be fat...and they dont drink any sodas and are still fat?

i know a couple of people who are about 50-70 lbs overweight, and theyve never touched a soda in their lives..

i dont thing sugar is the only culprit for obesity

50 - 70 lbs overweight is hardly genetic, unless it's glandular.

Originally posted by Blaine91555
Blame the poison rather than blaming ourselves for willingly ingesting it?

We are all personally responsible for what we do to ourselves. Blaming anyone but ourselves is denial of the same sort Alcoholics use.

Business only provides what consumers will buy. We stop buying, they stop producing and selling the product. Honesty demands that people take personal responsibility for what they do to themselves.

The so called Food Police are just people in denial or control freaks who get off on controlling others behavior. To date every person I've met that are one of the Food Police supporters, are control freaks about everything and so narcissistic they drive people away from them. It seems to be a pattern.

Stop buying Coke and the company will stop making it. If others wish to use their product, it's their own business and nobody elses. The Food Police are becoming one of the most laughed at and hated classes in society. They seem to not even be aware that other people don't appreciate total strangers telling them what to do or trying to control them.

Education is the answer, not a Dictatorial society ruled by control freaks.

Right unfortunately Coke has exclusive marketing contracts providing a guaranteed buyer

I think spy cams should be placed in the people’s kitchens that control the food supply to see what they are eating. Joke of course but that would certainly provide some useful data as to what should be avoided. I do think the video underestimates the role of exercise etc; I eat/drink the same as I always have and I am damn sure my exercising is what’s keeping me from getting a beer belly.

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by fulllotusqigong

 

I know people that eat sugar out of the sugar bowl but how much sugar people put in their drinks has nothing to do with the results of the Princeton study.
Female Rats given:
Water 177%
HFCS in water available for 12-h 183%
Sucrose in water 183%

That is a measly 6% between water and sugary drinks and no difference between HFCS and sucrose. TG for the 12-h group where the same as the water group.

There were no controlled chow groups in the male experiment so who nows what that would have looked like. What really makes a difference is the amount of food avialable. Of course they don't focus on that but it is something that should be considered.

Of course the rats can't read labels but humans can but if what dr teg posted is true that:

patients who had lost significant weight after gastric bypass told their doctor that they had lied about their food intake although they believed their lies at the time.

then not being honest with the amount of food your actually consuming probably is a bigger cause.

edit on 29-1-2012 by daskakik because: (no reason given)

Right the study is on the rate of fat growth. As the study indicates -- triglycerides increase first and then as the other studies show the tricglycerides don't activate the leptin -- so the brain thinks it is starving even though the body is gaining fat. Since the fat is also based on increased insulin then it is stored first in the belly -- so that's why there is increased fat mass in the abdomin. This is what makes fructose increase weight at a greater rate than just sucrose.

So Peter Havel at the University of California, Davis, persuaded 33 overweight and obese adults to go on a diet that was 30 percent fat, 55 percent complex carbohydrates and 15 percent protein for two weeks. For a further 10 weeks, they switched to a diet in which 25 percent of their energy came from either fructose or glucose. In those given fructose there was an increase in the amount of intra-abdominal fat, which wraps around internal organs, causes a pot belly and has been linked to an increased risk of diabetes and cardiovascular disease. This did not happen with the group who consumed glucose instead, even though both gained an average 1.5 kilograms in weight. Those who consumed fructose also had raised levels of fatty triglycerides, which get deposited as intra-abdominal fat, and cholesterol. Their insulin sensitivity also fell by 20 per cent. Glucose appeared to have no effect on these measures. Havel presented the results at a meeting of the Endocrine Society in San Francisco last week. Read your labels and do not consume anything with High Fructose Corn Syrup.!!!!!!!

So another study comparing glucose to fructose -- same weight gain but fructose caused metabolic syndrome


More details on the Havel study


The actual Havel study

Originally posted by fulllotusqigong
reply to post by Sk8ergrl

 

Keep Kids from being Coke Mind-Controlled is Tough

In marketing to children, Schlosser suggests, corporations have infiltrated schools through sponsorship and quid pro quo. He sees that reductions in corporate taxation have come at the expense of school funding, thereby presenting many corporations with the opportunity for sponsorship with those same schools. According to his sources, 80% of sponsored textbooks contain material that is biased in favor of the sponsors, and 30% of high schools offer fast foods in their cafeterias.[5] Schlosser shares anecdotes suggesting that students who disregarded sponsorships could be punished, such as the case of high school student Mike Cameron. He was suspended from school for an incident on "Coke day"; while his fellow students wore red or white T-shirts and posed collectively as the word COKE while aerial photographs were taken, Cameron instead wore Pepsi-blue.

Funny how they describe the kid wore " pepsi blue" No. just because the kid decided to go against the grain, doesnt mean he is sporting the other company's colors. You cant fix stupid

reply to post by fulllotusqigong

Did you look at the data that I pointed out? The fructose didn't lead to more fat gained compared to sucrose and actually only a small amount greater than water. The difference? Portion control. Things that logical and reasonable people should be able to control unless they are like many fat people I have met who complain because they say that they don't eat anything and are fat. Denial would seem to be the leading cause of obesity.

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by fulllotusqigong

 

Did you look at the data that I pointed out? The fructose didn't lead to more fat gained compared to sucrose and actually only a small amount greater than water. The difference? Portion control. Things that logical and reasonable people should be able to control unless they are like many fat people I have met who complain because they say that they don't eat anything and are fat. Denial would seem to be the leading cause of obesity.

The study emphasizes that the calories from fructose were less than sucrose yet the fructose caused a greater rate of weight gain and more importantly metabolic syndrome which causes many serious diseases.

Dr. George Bray is a professor of medicine at Louisiana State University, and has looked at whether HFCS in beverages has played a role in the increase in obesity in the U.S. He says that two-thirds of the high-fructose corn syrup Americans consume is in soft drinks. If you add a single soft drink to an otherwise balanced energy level [meaning you are burning as many calories and you are taking in] for one year you will accumulate an additional 15 pounds, says Bray. And many are drinking more than one pop a day. According to CSPI, "Carbonated soft drinks are the single biggest source of calories in the American diet, providing about 7 percent of calories; adding in noncarbonated drinks brings the figure to 9 percent. Teenagers get 13 percent of their calories from carbonated and noncarbonated soft drinks."

HFCS is not the same as sucrose!

The Corn Refiners Association and other special interest groups rebut the idea that theres anything wrong with HFCS. They claim theres no difference between HFCS and table sugar because both are made up of about 50 percent fructose and 50 percent glucose. They are wrong, says Bray. As he explains, HFCS is a solution with fructose and glucose as separate molecules, whereas sucrose -again, thats table sugar- is a single molecule coupling fructose and glucose. Because of this, there are twice as many molecules of sweetener in a 10 percent solution of HFCS as in a 10 percent solution of sugar.

reply to post by fulllotusqigong

The people who did the write up did come to those conclusions but I tossed their conclusions aside and just looked at the data because certain subsets of data don't match the conclusions. Is it that hard to think for yourself?

Most of the animals were free to eat as much as they wanted so the .16 cal per ml is a small difference when compared to the 3 cal per gram of food.

As an adult, it's on you to know what and how much to eat, and to get off your lazy, fat butt and exercise to lose weight. Also as an adult, it's up to us to educate and moderate what our kids eat and drink, and teach them what is bad for them. Parents don't give their kids the time of day any more. They also don't give themselves the time of day to be honest. They should spend more time making themselves healthy. But instead, they enjoy coming onto forums such as these, and pointing fingers at soda pop companies for the reason they are obese. Please...

I live in an apartment, and it has a gym. The complex has approximately 450 units. I go to the gym 6 days a week typically, after work for about an hour and a half total. I don't think dedicating 8 or 9 hours out of the 168 hours in a week unreasonable to staying fit. However, I see probably 3 other dedicated folks when I work out, and maybe a handful more in off-times. That's it. VERY often, I am the only one there for an hour and a half. Out of 900 to 1200+ people that live in this complex, I'd be surprised if more than 20 actually used the facilities provided. Of course, some may pay for a membership, or are active in other ways. But even in Colorado, which is the "healthiest" state, I see so many obese people it's not funny. Because it's easier to sit on ones butt watching TV, playing on the computer, or whatever they are doing, than actually work and sweat and try to get in shape.

Coke, fast food, and all the rest, is an convenient excuse for people who are too lazy to cook their own food, and hit the gym and get in shape.

I cannot believe that people actually pay money for and drink that black vile sweet syruppy teeth rotting concoction!

I cannot believe that people actually pay money for and drink that black vile sweet syruppy teeth rotting concoction!

I drink diet coke (or pepsi), whichever I am in the mood for, with my whiskey. It's a very simple beverage, not sure what all the fuss is about. It has nothing to do with obesity.

Originally posted by fleabit
As an adult, it's on you to know what and how much to eat, and to get off your lazy, fat butt and exercise to lose weight. Also as an adult, it's up to us to educate and moderate what our kids eat and drink, and teach them what is bad for them. Parents don't give their kids the time of day any more. They also don't give themselves the time of day to be honest. They should spend more time making themselves healthy. But instead, they enjoy coming onto forums such as these, and pointing fingers at soda pop companies for the reason they are obese. Please...

I live in an apartment, and it has a gym. The complex has approximately 450 units. I go to the gym 6 days a week typically, after work for about an hour and a half total. I don't think dedicating 8 or 9 hours out of the 168 hours in a week unreasonable to staying fit. However, I see probably 3 other dedicated folks when I work out, and maybe a handful more in off-times. That's it. VERY often, I am the only one there for an hour and a half. Out of 900 to 1200+ people that live in this complex, I'd be surprised if more than 20 actually used the facilities provided. Of course, some may pay for a membership, or are active in other ways. But even in Colorado, which is the "healthiest" state, I see so many obese people it's not funny. Because it's easier to sit on ones butt watching TV, playing on the computer, or whatever they are doing, than actually work and sweat and try to get in shape.

Coke, fast food, and all the rest, is an convenient excuse for people who are too lazy to cook their own food, and hit the gym and get in shape.

edit on 29-1-2012 by fleabit because: (no reason given)

Right you are in a structure that has a gym built into it. In contrast there are many structures that have Coke machines as the most readily available source of calories -- isolated structures like large Universities, high schools, work places.

So this is a structural issue -- not an individual choice issue.

It's a structural issue that HFCS gets billions of dollars a year in federal subsidies and that welfare handout is passed onto Coke and other soda companies.

So individual choice won't change that structure -- instead the law has to be changed which requires a mass group effort. It's a difference of logical order.

Kind of like population -- individuals choose to have kids but don't consider that all individuals having kids creates a population explosion for the group as a whole.

So the group as a whole is exposed to Coke just as your group of individuals in your apartment are exposed to your fitness gym.

These are exclusive contracts that once signed are almost impossible to end -- and the contracts rely on the institution signing them getting "free" marketing as advertising by Coca Cola -- so Coke pays them advertising fees -- but advertising fees are tax deductible!!

So free advertising for the institution really means corporate welfare -- as less tax money for education.

So the schools are handing over their institutions and so are the work places.

Coke then claims it does not control its bottling companies in other countries and then Coke uses goons to squash any labor rights working for fair wage conditions.

By squash I mean murder. So these are not individual choices -- a union is a free association of individuals working as a group. Coke is a corporate charter -- a legal entity that can be revoked.

Coke is not a group of individuals - -but a legal structure.

Similarly laws against HFCS are not getting pre-empted by laws banning laws creating bans of HFCS!

The reasoning is that it discriminates against individuals if they are not allowed to sell HFCS.

So individual choice is used to create institutions and structures that guarantee a forced market of consumers.

Ban HFCS

Originally posted by Sk8ergrl

Originally posted by kn0wh0w
Coca Cola summed up

Have you also noticed that the C in CocaCola looks like a snakes tongue? satan was the snake in the garden of eden. And the other tongue is going through the L at the top

edit on 1/28/1212 by Sk8ergrl because: mispelling

It is written in Spencerian Script. Which most things in the late 1800's were written in. No Satan or Snake, just normal script for that age.

Right you are in a structure that has a gym built into it. In contrast there are many structures that have Coke machines as the most readily available source of calories -- isolated structures like large Universities, high schools, work places.

I'm sorry, but I just see a lot of babble, trying to make excuses for obesity. How does a university or a workplace having coke preclude someone from making a CHOICE to not drink it? Or to say, WORK OUT? You don't need a gym to work out. You need an elevated heart rate for approximately 45 mins to an hour, so your body consumes fat for energy. Not rocket surgery here.

My work once we moved downtown from the tech center, offered a few things. One was soda for .25 - quarter sodas! Guess how many I've bought in a year and a half? About 5 diet sodas, and 0 non-diet versions. It's CHOICE. No one is holding a gun to anyone's head and forcing them to drink soda or eat crappy food. Self discipline, motivation, and not being a lazy lump is what people need. Not soda companies to go away.

Some days it's snowing and freezing. Some days I feel like I have a long nail embedded in my leg because my huge spasm-ed back muscles are pinching my sciatic nerve. Guess what.. I STILL GO TO THE STUPID GYM! I don't like to much of the time.. who enjoys spending an hour and a half sweating, being wore out while being in pain? But ya know.. I am not obese. I am healthy (aside from my back.. which is a much better when I am in shape, versus not.. which is true for most people.. a strong core.. means a healthier back). I have to make the same decisions as everyone else about what to eat and drink.

Stop making excuses for people, it's pathetic. People need to get off their lazy butts and get in shape, that's all there is to it.

Originally posted by fleabit

Right you are in a structure that has a gym built into it. In contrast there are many structures that have Coke machines as the most readily available source of calories -- isolated structures like large Universities, high schools, work places.

I'm sorry, but I just see a lot of babble, trying to make excuses for obesity. How does a university or a workplace having coke preclude someone from making a CHOICE to not drink it? Or to say, WORK OUT? You don't need a gym to work out. You need an elevated heart rate for approximately 45 mins to an hour, so your body consumes fat for energy. Not rocket surgery here.

My work once we moved downtown from the tech center, offered a few things. One was soda for .25 - quarter sodas! Guess how many I've bought in a year and a half? About 5 diet sodas, and 0 non-diet versions. It's CHOICE. No one is holding a gun to anyone's head and forcing them to drink soda or eat crappy food. Self discipline, motivation, and not being a lazy lump is what people need. Not soda companies to go away.

Some days it's snowing and freezing. Some days I feel like I have a long nail embedded in my leg because my huge spasm-ed back muscles are pinching my sciatic nerve. Guess what.. I STILL GO TO THE STUPID GYM! I don't like to much of the time.. who enjoys spending an hour and a half sweating, being wore out while being in pain? But ya know.. I am not obese. I am healthy (aside from my back.. which is a much better when I am in shape, versus not.. which is true for most people.. a strong core.. means a healthier back). I have to make the same decisions as everyone else about what to eat and drink.

Stop making excuses for people, it's pathetic. People need to get off their lazy butts and get in shape, that's all there is to it.

Right it's like crack in the ghetto. No one has to smoke it. There's just no other choices. In fact it's precisely similar.

Fruit and vegetables -- fresh food -- is very rare in low income neighborhoods. Instead it's HFCS food.

So no one is forced to -- they just don't have any other options for calories.

As I've posted there are exclusive contracts that have been challenged by pointing out how evil Coke is -- but being evil does not mean violating the "material duty" of the contract. So far HFCS is not illegal in the U.S. no matter how evil Coke is in other countries -- with their bottling plants sucking dry the water tables and assassinating workers who organize unions.

So as individuals we can all make choices but individual choices do not produce structural change -- for that there needs to be a change in the law.

Originally posted by randomname
the real coca cola conspiracy is the amount of coca leaves they import to manufacture their product.

they are the only company that are legally allowed to import literally tonnes of coca leaves into the united states.

of course they claim to extract all the coc aine from the leaves.

but that leaves the question, what do they do with the coc aine solution. the process is already 3/4 done.

the last step is the relatively simple task of crystallizing the solution. do they just flush away potentially billions of dollars of coc aine down the drain.

imagine the amount of coca leaves needed to flavor every can and bottle of coke around the globe.
do they get every amount of coc aine out of their product. it doesn't seem like it.

First off. Coca-Cola does not import and process the leaves, the Stepan Company does. Also, the extracted coc aine is sent to Mallinckrodt, a pharmaceutical firm.

Coca-Cola includes as an ingredient a coca leaf extract prepared by a Stepan Company plant in Maywood, New Jersey.[2] The facility, which had been known as the Maywood Chemical Works, was purchased by Stepan in 1959.[3] The plant is the only commercial entity in the USA authorized by the Drug Enforcement Administration to import coca leaves, which come primarily from Peru. Approximately 100 metric tons of dried coca leaf are imported each year. The coc aine-free leaves are sold to The Coca Cola Company, while the active ingredient is sold to Mallinckrodt, a pharmaceutical firm, for medicinal purposes.[4]

How the Coca leaves in Coke are processed

Originally posted by fleabit

Right you are in a structure that has a gym built into it. In contrast there are many structures that have Coke machines as the most readily available source of calories -- isolated structures like large Universities, high schools, work places.

I'm sorry, but I just see a lot of babble, trying to make excuses for obesity. How does a university or a workplace having coke preclude someone from making a CHOICE to not drink it? Or to say, WORK OUT? You don't need a gym to work out. You need an elevated heart rate for approximately 45 mins to an hour, so your body consumes fat for energy. Not rocket surgery here.

My work once we moved downtown from the tech center, offered a few things. One was soda for .25 - quarter sodas! Guess how many I've bought in a year and a half? About 5 diet sodas, and 0 non-diet versions. It's CHOICE. No one is holding a gun to anyone's head and forcing them to drink soda or eat crappy food. Self discipline, motivation, and not being a lazy lump is what people need. Not soda companies to go away.

Some days it's snowing and freezing. Some days I feel like I have a long nail embedded in my leg because my huge spasm-ed back muscles are pinching my sciatic nerve. Guess what.. I STILL GO TO THE STUPID GYM! I don't like to much of the time.. who enjoys spending an hour and a half sweating, being wore out while being in pain? But ya know.. I am not obese. I am healthy (aside from my back.. which is a much better when I am in shape, versus not.. which is true for most people.. a strong core.. means a healthier back). I have to make the same decisions as everyone else about what to eat and drink.

Stop making excuses for people, it's pathetic. People need to get off their lazy butts and get in shape, that's all there is to it.

O.K. let's consider Mexico as a big low income neighborhood. Sure it's a bit simplistic but it gets the point across that this is not about individual choices - but rather the law and economic structures:

U.S. consumption of HFCS dropped 14 percent to around 7.3 million tonnes since 2002 while sugar demand during the same period stayed basically flat, said Jack Roney, an official at the American Sugar Alliance. "U.S. corn sweetener producers are feeling relieved that while they are losing market share in the U.S. they are gaining market share in Mexico. That is a great solace," he said. But if the opposite trend accelerates in Mexico, it may irk some Mexican consumers nostalgic for sugar-sweetened versions drinks like Coca-Cola they grew up drinking. "I like soft drinks better in Mexico. I have read that fructose is sweeter than sugar but it has a certain flavor that I personally don't like," said Enrique Hernandez, an avid soda drinker who lived a year in the United States.

So NAFTA dropped trade barriers for HFCS and it's increased by eight times as an import