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

But this completely ignores the observation that exercise won't counteract a poor diet. It doesn't...and studies are very clear on this.

Sorry, that's just not true. You are the one clearly not up to speed on things. There is no such thing as a good calorie or a bad calorie. It's a unit of energy. As long as you BURN more calories than you INTAKE, you will lose weight, end of story.

Now, there are such things as good fat, bad fat, good protien, bad protien, etc. If you eat 2000 calories of jelly beans versus 2000 calories of say, snap peas, then as they are broken down, each may affect your body differently. So yes, you can get ill-effects from eating bad foods. But as far as pure weight gain and loss goes, which is the topic of this thread (secret cause of U.S. obesity epidemic), it has to do with people eating more calories than they burn. That's it. Lazy people choosing to eat way more servings of processed, high fat, breaded, oil-ridden foods than they should, given their complete lack of physical exercise.

Of course it's easy to be lazy. How can adults teach children about health and activity if they themselves are are completely misinformed as you are?

I'm not misinformed. I've had back problems, and have easily lost weight several times. A few years back I fell down some stairs, injured my back fairly badly. Was a long time before I could work out again. Once I did, I lost 35 pounds in 3 months, just eating a bit better, and hitting the gym 6 days a week. No weird diets, and no skipping entire food types. Just eating in moderation, and cutting back (but not cutting out) the bad foods. A guy at work I knew was about 100 pounds overweight. I gave him a workout regimen, which he followed, and he cut back on his beer drinking a bit, and within a year, he was in excellent shape, and kept it off. It's very simple stuff - people just try to make it out like it's some complex problem caused by outside sources. No... everyone has the ability and means to lose the weight! Most just don't want to go through the effort.

Exercise alone has NEVER been a good treatment for obesity. Consciously burning more calories than you take in doesn't work.

Sorry, that's just dead wrong. If you burn more calories than you take in, you HAVE to lose weight, unless you are a scientific miracle. It's ENERGY. That's like saying you drove 10 miles but gained 2 gallons of gas. Gas by the way, has 31,000 calories.

There is no doubt that with exercise, a healthy eating lifestyle works wonders. It's healthier for your body, developes muscles, joints, helps blood, internal organs, all that. And it only makes sense - if you are taking the effort to exercise.. say, you do an hour on an elliptical for 830 calories (which is my average.. I always go longer though, until I hit 1000 calories), why would you want to suck in a 1200 calorie Schlotzky's sandwhich?

It's just intelligent choices. READ LABELS. You'd think a pot pie wouldn't be too terrible. Go read the back of a Maria Callender pot pie, and be prepared to be amazed at how many calories are in that sucker.

I don't agree that you have to live like a caveman to be healthy, that's ridiculous. Smaller portions, less fast food (don't have to cut it out entirely), less drinking if you do that, less sweets, make more meals at home.. that's all you have to do.

People are fat because they choose to be.

reply to post by daskakik


misleading in that it says hfcs consumption is down, how? Everyting on the shelf is saturated with it so nothing has changed. I do agree there are other causes but it certainly plays a role. Simple test stop eating it completely and watch the pounds come off, providing you don't substitute the calories. sugar is as much a problem but hfcs is in considerably more products. There also seems to be a lot of money invested in making the hfcs story go away. Huge profits from corn in this country so I would suggest findings from multiple sources not tied to any organization as this one was, all I'm saying.

Originally posted by MentalData
reply to post by daskakik

 

misleading in that it says hfcs consumption is down, how? Everyting on the shelf is saturated with it so nothing has changed.

Saturated is an exageration. Maybe because producers are not selling the same volumes. There has to be some way of knowing.

Just because things are on the shelf doesn't mean that people are buying them in the same quantities as before or at all. I'm sure those that are anti-hfcs don't buy them at all. How could this not cause hfcs consumtion to be down on average? Hostess has even filed bankruptcy

Hostess has enough cash to keep stores stocked with its Ding Dongs, Ho Hos and other snacks for now as it battles rising labor costs and increased competition. But longer term, the 87-year-old company has a bigger problem: health-conscious Americans favor yogurt and energy bars over the dessert cakes and white bread they devoured 30 years ago.

I do agree there are other causes but it certainly plays a role.

It doesn't seem to be playing the same role in Japan and S. Korea so maybe it isn't the huge deal that the OP implies.

Simple test stop eating it completely and watch the pounds come off, providing you don't substitute the calories. Sugar is as much a problem but hfcs is in considerably more products.

Actually I live in a country that uses little HFCS and people have lots of extra pounds so I would say that not eating eat doesn't makes pounds melt away.

Of course you know this or you wouldn't have posted "if you don't substitute it". Now if people in the 70's were consuming 2,150 calories and in 2005 it had gone up to 2,700 why is the rise in obesity a surprise?

There also seems to be a lot of money invested in making the hfcs story go away. Huge profits from corn in this country so I would suggest findings from multiple sources not tied to any organization as this one was, all I'm saying.

It is argued that the reason it is bad is the fructose is actually free and not bound to glucose like in regular sugar. Problem is that agave and honey are also unbound fructose and those are usually viewed as healthy and have been used for a long time before this obesity epidemic.

I say there is alot of money being made from the hfcs story as well that is why I set aside the conclusion of the Princeton study and looked at the raw data and formulated my own conclusion. Same with this article the only difference is that I agree with these conclusions.

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by daskakik

 

It is argued that the reason it is bad is the fructose is actually free and not bound to glucose like in regular sugar. Problem is that agave and honey are also unbound fructose and those are usually viewed as healthy and have been used for a long time before this obesity epidemic.

I say there is alot of money being made from the hfcs story as well that is why I set aside the conclusion of the Princeton study and looked at the raw data and formulated my own conclusion. Same with this article the only difference is that I agree with these conclusions.

It's not just that HFCS is unbounded but also there is a lot more used in concentrated form because HFCS is super cheap and is liquid so it can be blended into drinks.

As for the claims that HFCS is the same as sugar -- those studies are funded by the corn syrup and soda industries -- as I already posted. There's been at least six of those studies exposed already. haha.

This is not too surprising right? Coca Cola makes tens of billions in net revenue every year -- it's a huge massive corporation. Same with ADM -- they make billions in net revenue every year -- and they make corn syrup -- after getting hundreds of millions in subsidies.

So that's why the U.S. has an obesity epidemic. Sure it is spreading worldwide as corn syrup as spread worldwide. That's why Mexico is about to surpass the U.S. - because of NAFTA lowering the price of corn syrup imports.

Originally posted by fleabit

But this completely ignores the observation that exercise won't counteract a poor diet. It doesn't...and studies are very clear on this.

Sorry, that's just not true. You are the one clearly not up to speed on things. There is no such thing as a good calorie or a bad calorie. It's a unit of energy. As long as you BURN more calories than you INTAKE, you will lose weight, end of story.

Now, there are such things as good fat, bad fat, good protien, bad protien, etc. If you eat 2000 calories of jelly beans versus 2000 calories of say, snap peas, then as they are broken down, each may affect your body differently. So yes, you can get ill-effects from eating bad foods. But as far as pure weight gain and loss goes, which is the topic of this thread (secret cause of U.S. obesity epidemic), it has to do with people eating more calories than they burn. That's it. Lazy people choosing to eat way more servings of processed, high fat, breaded, oil-ridden foods than they should, given their complete lack of physical exercise.

Of course it's easy to be lazy. How can adults teach children about health and activity if they themselves are are completely misinformed as you are?

I'm not misinformed. I've had back problems, and have easily lost weight several times. A few years back I fell down some stairs, injured my back fairly badly. Was a long time before I could work out again. Once I did, I lost 35 pounds in 3 months, just eating a bit better, and hitting the gym 6 days a week. No weird diets, and no skipping entire food types. Just eating in moderation, and cutting back (but not cutting out) the bad foods. A guy at work I knew was about 100 pounds overweight. I gave him a workout regimen, which he followed, and he cut back on his beer drinking a bit, and within a year, he was in excellent shape, and kept it off. It's very simple stuff - people just try to make it out like it's some complex problem caused by outside sources. No... everyone has the ability and means to lose the weight! Most just don't want to go through the effort.

Exercise alone has NEVER been a good treatment for obesity. Consciously burning more calories than you take in doesn't work.

Sorry, that's just dead wrong. If you burn more calories than you take in, you HAVE to lose weight, unless you are a scientific miracle. It's ENERGY. That's like saying you drove 10 miles but gained 2 gallons of gas. Gas by the way, has 31,000 calories.

There is no doubt that with exercise, a healthy eating lifestyle works wonders. It's healthier for your body, developes muscles, joints, helps blood, internal organs, all that. And it only makes sense - if you are taking the effort to exercise.. say, you do an hour on an elliptical for 830 calories (which is my average.. I always go longer though, until I hit 1000 calories), why would you want to suck in a 1200 calorie Schlotzky's sandwhich?

It's just intelligent choices. READ LABELS. You'd think a pot pie wouldn't be too terrible. Go read the back of a Maria Callender pot pie, and be prepared to be amazed at how many calories are in that sucker.

I don't agree that you have to live like a caveman to be healthy, that's ridiculous. Smaller portions, less fast food (don't have to cut it out entirely), less drinking if you do that, less sweets, make more meals at home.. that's all you have to do.

People are fat because they choose to be.

Actually what's called "metabolic syndrome" caused by corn syrup means it is iso-caloric but not iso-metabolic. So a more accurate term for "metabolic syndrome" according to Dr. Lustig -- again due to corn syrup -- is saturated mitochondria.

Dr. Lustig's whole point is there is a non-linear relation for the calorie levels of corn syrup. The calorie intake changes the metabolism so that the calories are burned inefficiently -- and the increase in fat then requires an increase in leptin due to the increase in insulin. So there is a feedback as more fat is needed to increase the leptin but then the more fat increases the insulin again -- thereby competing with the leptin for the leptin receptors in the brain. So the brain still thinks the body is starving -- even though the calories have been turned into bad fat.

So it's not just bad fat. It's that the calories taken in change the metabolism causing the brain to think it needs more calories.

reply to post by fulllotusqigong


Yeah whatever. They have their agenda and you have yours. I'm sure they caused agave and honey to be free fructose to take the heat off of hfcs.

While you can't control the amount that is in products you can control how much you consume and what other things are in your diet. That is what people in other countries with a large consumption of hfcs are doing. So it isn't the hfcs or the amount being placed in drinks but lack of moderation that has caused the obesity epidemic in the US.

You don't want to believe this but the facts are there even if you wish to ignore them.

Originally posted by daskakik
This guy makes a pretty good argument against the OP.
Straight talk about high-fructose corn syrup: what it is and what it ain't

The guy you're referring to is owned by the Corn Refiners:

Like this webinar by President of the Corn Refiners Association Audrae Erickson, which is currently up on the website of Supply Side, one of the largest trade shows for the food additives industry (registration required). The goal is to leverage self-interest to recruit key supporters to the cause.

Part B is to get a Spokes-Guru. It appears that the corn refiners have gotten themselves a guy by the name of John S. White, an industry consultant who does business as White Technical Research and brings over 20 of experience in "nutritive sweeteners." (He co-hosted the webinar with Ms. Erickson.) Expect to see a lot of Mr. White blogging, writing articles, lecturing, appearing at government hearings and on TV morning shows as an "independent" analyst.

reply to post by fulllotusqigong


I just offered his article as a point of view that I agree with. I'm sure he was payed well to find the information and put up the argument that hfcs is the same as other sweetners. That doesn't mean he is wrong. I believe you are wrong and have posted the information that I believe proves that.

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by fulllotusqigong

 

I just offered his article as a point of view that I agree with. I'm sure he was payed well to find the information and put up the argument that hfcs is the same as other sweetners. That doesn't mean he is wrong. I believe you are wrong and have posted the information that I believe proves that.

Dr. Lustig:

This is a global pandemic. Do you think all of a sudden everybody in the world just became glutton and sloths all at the same time? Get with the program....First of all I have no disclosures. I am not the mouth piece of any organization. No body is putting me up to this. Certainly not the food industry. This is the past. 2001. Six million kids are seriously obese....We are now at 20 million. Currently there are 30% more obese people in the world than malnourished people.

DP.

Originally posted by fulllotusqigong
This is a global pandemic. Do you think all of a sudden everybody in the world just became glutton and sloths all at the same time? Get with the program....First of all I have no disclosures. I am not the mouth piece of any organization. No body is putting me up to this. Certainly not the food industry. This is the past. 2001. Six million kids are seriously obese....We are now at 20 million. Currently there are 30% more obese people in the world than malnourished people.

Is there a point? Wrong is wrong. No amount of good intentions is going to change reality.

Global? What a joke. You have said it yourself that outside of the US most cokes are made with sucrose.

Originally posted by daskakik

Originally posted by fulllotusqigong
This is a global pandemic. Do you think all of a sudden everybody in the world just became glutton and sloths all at the same time? Get with the program....First of all I have no disclosures. I am not the mouth piece of any organization. No body is putting me up to this. Certainly not the food industry. This is the past. 2001. Six million kids are seriously obese....We are now at 20 million. Currently there are 30% more obese people in the world than malnourished people.

Is there a point? Wrong is wrong. No amount of good intentions is going to change reality.

Global? What a joke. You have said it yourself that outside of the US most cokes are made with sucrose.

edit on 30-1-2012 by daskakik because: (no reason given)

Dr. Lustig:

The current users [of HFCS] are us, Canada, Japan because that's where it was invented, and also very limited exposure in parts of Europe,...but here's the other stuff: Sucrose.... They are both equally bad.

Those studies that were funded by the beverage industry show distinctly signficantly lower effects. Take if for what you will.

There is a really good book talking about our diets and health problems. It is called "Real Food: What to Eat and Why" by Nina Planck. It goes into detail about how different types of sugars and fats effect our body and why they do. The basic conclusion is that in order to be healthy you should eat "real foods" and you can determine easily what a "real food" is by looking at how long humanity has been eating it.

Originally posted by fulllotusqigong
Dr. Lustig:

The current users [of HFCS] are us, Canada, Japan because that's where it was invented, and also very limited exposure in parts of Europe,...

Your kidding right? Japan doesn't have an obesity problem dispite using hfcs.

but here's the other stuff: Sucrose.... They are both equally bad.

That is what I posted on page 4 here and you have posted over and over that they are not. Which is it?

Originally posted by daskakik

Originally posted by fulllotusqigong
Dr. Lustig:

The current users [of HFCS] are us, Canada, Japan because that's where it was invented, and also very limited exposure in parts of Europe,...

Your kidding right? Japan doesn't have an obesity problem dispite using hfcs.

but here's the other stuff: Sucrose.... They are both equally bad.

That is what I posted on page 4 here and you have posted over and over that they are not. Which is it?

edit on 30-1-2012 by daskakik because: (no reason given)

Dr. Lustig says, contrary to Forbes, that the US, UK and Australia are the three most obese countries in the world.

World sugar consumption tripled in the last thirty years

From Wiki:

In Japan, HFCS consumption accounts for one quarter of total sweetener consumption.

The other factor is fruit juice -- in countries that don't drink alcohol -- so there's increased juice and soda.



The difference is between fructose and glucose and also the amount of fructose used compared to fiber. So that's why HFCS as a liquid is the worst.

Originally posted by fulllotusqigong
Dr. Lustig says, contrary to Forbes, that the US, UK and Australia are the three most obese countries in the world.

He may be right and he may be wrong but you even posted a video showing Mexico about to surpass the US so they can't be the top 3.

World sugar consumption tripled in the last thirty years

No doubt.

In Japan, HFCS consumption accounts for one quarter of total sweetener consumption.

That is a large amount yet they don't even make the top 25 obese countries which proves that hfcs isnt a direct cause of obesity.

The other factor is fruit juice -- in countries that don't drink alcohol -- so there's increased juice and soda.

Alcohol and fruit juices have been consumed for millenia before the pandemic so I don't think their to blame.

The difference is between fructose and glucose and also the amount of fructose used compared to fiber. So that's why HFCS as a liquid is the worst.

First you quote the doctor saying they are the same and now they are not?

Sugar cane juice can be left at the syrup stage and probably is for bottling plants that use sucrose. All sugars form syrup when mixed with a small amount of water. Ask any bartender. Honey, maple syrup, cane molasses, beet molasses, sorghum syrup and agave are also in that form and there's probably more.

reply to post by fulllotusqigong


High fructose corn syrup is very bad, but it is emphatically NOT the only obesogen people are exposed to daily. Nor is Coca Cola the primary source of obesogens in our environment. ....By all means go after them, but not by denying the horrific breadth and extent of the problem. From your source article:

These chemicals enter our bodies from a variety of sources — natural hormones found in soy products, hormones administered to animals, plastics in some food and drink packaging, ingredients added to processed foods, and pesticides sprayed on produce.

These chemicals act in a variety of ways: by mimicking human hormones such as estrogen, by misprogramming stem cells to become fat cells and by altering the function of genes.

Endocrine disruptors are suspected in playing a role in weight gain fertility problems, genital malformation, reduced male birth rates, precocious puberty, miscarriage, behavior problems, brain abnormalities, impaired immune function, various cancers, and cardiovascular disease.

Originally posted by daskakik

Originally posted by fulllotusqigong
Dr. Lustig says, contrary to Forbes, that the US, UK and Australia are the three most obese countries in the world.

He may be right and he may be wrong but you even posted a video showing Mexico about to surpass the US so they can't be the top 3.

World sugar consumption tripled in the last thirty years

No doubt.

In Japan, HFCS consumption accounts for one quarter of total sweetener consumption.

That is a large amount yet they don't even make the top 25 obese countries which proves that hfcs isnt a direct cause of obesity.

The other factor is fruit juice -- in countries that don't drink alcohol -- so there's increased juice and soda.

Alcohol and fruit juices have been consumed for millenia before the pandemic so I don't think their to blame.

The difference is between fructose and glucose and also the amount of fructose used compared to fiber. So that's why HFCS as a liquid is the worst.

First you quote the doctor saying they are the same and now they are not?

Sugar cane juice can be left at the syrup stage and probably is for bottling plants that use sucrose. All sugars form syrup when mixed with a small amount of water. Ask any bartender. Honey, maple syrup, cane molasses, beet molasses, sorghum syrup and agave are also in that form and there's probably more.

edit on 30-1-2012 by daskakik because: (no reason given)

Brazil has the highest rate of increase in diabetes due to their large sugar production. Brazil does not have the highest number of diabetes but the highest rate of increase of diabetes.

Again it's the difference between rate and number. Mexico would then have the highest rate of increase of obesity in the world.

Sucrose is not the same molecular structure as HFCS.

HFCS is way cheaper -- so it's now being exported to Mexico under NAFTA.

HFCS is not just in Coke -- it's in fruit juice and tons of processed products.

Fruit juice has increased recently due to processing of food -- if you take out the fiber then you can freeze the juice for longer storage life -- which means more profits.

That's not how fruit juice was consumed for millennia.

Alcohol is an acute poison so it is regulated.

Fructose is a chronic poison. It is the same as alcohol only without the same acute effects.

So Dr. Lustig is arguing the fructose needs to be regulated to stop the diabetes epidemic and related diseases.

Equicaloric but not equimetabolic.

The advantage of HFCS as a liquid is that it is more easily used in processed baked goods -- it blends more easily with solids.

As the Corn people say -- HFCS retains moisture and resists crystallization when baking.

So that's why HFCS is in everything -- also being the cheapest.

Alcohol and fructose both go straight to the mitochondria -- overwhelming the mitrochondria.

Whether you are thin or fat you can still have metabolic syndrome.

So Dr. Lustig is not just focused on obesity but on metabolic syndrome.

So HFCS is like alcohol only it's focused on kids.

Ask any bartender.

A bar is not for kids.

reply to post by fulllotusqigong


You're not sying anything new plus your flip-flopping.

So Dr. Lustig is arguing the fructose needs to be regulated to stop the diabetes epidemic and related diseases.

Why didn't it need regulating in the thousands of years that it has been consumed as honey or other fructose containing sweetner. Also the Dr. seems to be talking about all sugars so you singling out of hfcs is a misrepresentation of his message.

As the Corn people say -- HFCS retains moisture and resists crystallization when baking.

Many syrups do.

A bar is not for kids.

By this answer I take it your young. Bartenders don't spend their entire existnce in bars. You can ask one on his day off.

Originally posted by soficrow
reply to post by fulllotusqigong

 

High fructose corn syrup is very bad, but it is emphatically NOT the only obesogen people are exposed to daily. Nor is Coca Cola the primary source of obesogens in our environment. ....By all means go after them, but not by denying the horrific breadth and extent of the problem. From your source article:

These chemicals enter our bodies from a variety of sources — natural hormones found in soy products, hormones administered to animals, plastics in some food and drink packaging, ingredients added to processed foods, and pesticides sprayed on produce.

These chemicals act in a variety of ways: by mimicking human hormones such as estrogen, by misprogramming stem cells to become fat cells and by altering the function of genes.

Endocrine disruptors are suspected in playing a role in weight gain fertility problems, genital malformation, reduced male birth rates, precocious puberty, miscarriage, behavior problems, brain abnormalities, impaired immune function, various cancers, and cardiovascular disease.

ABSTRACT: Rates of fructose consumption continue to rise worldwide, and have been linked to rising rates of obesity, type-2 diabetes mellitus, and metabolic syndrome. Elucidation of fructose metabolism in liver and fructose action in brain demonstrate three parallelisms with ethanol. First, hepatic fructose metabolism is similar to ethanol in that by accelerating the process of de novo lipogenesis, both promote hepatic insulin resistance, dyslipidemia, and hepatic steatosis. Second, fructosylation of proteins with resultant superoxide formation can result in inflammation similar to acetaldehyde, an intermediary metabolite of ethanol. Lastly, by stimulating the "hedonic pathway" of the brain both directly and indirectly, fructose creates habituation, and possibly dependence; also paralleling ethanol. On a societal level, the treatment of fructose as a commodity on the open market exhibits similarities to ethanol. Fructose induces alterations in both hepatic metabolism and central nervous system energy signaling, leading to a "vicious cycle" of excessive consumption and disease consistent with metabolic syndrome. These dose-dependent actions of fructose on the liver and on the hedonic pathway of the brain recapitulate the effects of ethanol.