It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by fulllotusqigong
What you quoted doesn't have anything to do with what I posted.
Making sugar harder to get will not make obesity go away because it isn't the only cause. As DevolutionEvolvd pointed out, all souces of carbs play a part. Don't tell me that grains, potatos and rice are next on your hit list.
edit on 1-2-2012 by daskakik because: (no reason given)
41% increase in soft drinks, 35% increase in fruit drinks....
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
Originally posted by BBalazs
reply to post by fulllotusqigong
I was replying to YOUR assumptions.
Anyway, it acts exactly like alcohol within the body (99%), which is a toxin.
So saying it is a toxin, is the TRUTH.
If you suggest it is not, you are also suggesting alcohol is not a toxin! Well done!
We have progressed little in medical science from the greeks.
in small doses a cure, in large doses a toxin.
Still, technically a poison.
So defend your preferred toxin away. Go for it!
As for science, it says another thing.
If it acts like poison, it is poison (or toxic is more precise), naming it is just that - naming it.
And one very inconvenient scientific fact remains, which I absolutely DARE you to disprove: OUR BODY DOESNT need SUGAR. It produces it own. Disprove that.
You are casting a wide net, proving your intelligence, however no need to do so.
Lets establish the facts first, otherwise we are talking side by side.
SO, does our BODY NEED SUGAR, or does it produce its own from FOODS?
lets start here.
edit on 2-2-2012 by BBalazs because: (no reason given)
Obesity is a major epidemic, but its causes are still unclear. In this article, we investigate the relation between the intake of high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) and the development of obesity. We analyzed food consumption patterns by using US Department of Agriculture food consumption tables from 1967 to 2000. The consumption of HFCS increased > 1000% between 1970 and 1990, far exceeding the changes in intake of any other food or food group. HFCS now represents > 40% of caloric sweeteners added to foods and beverages and is the sole caloric sweetener in soft drinks in the United States. Our most conservative estimate of the consumption of HFCS indicates a daily average of 132 kcal for all Americans aged ≥ 2 y, and the top 20% of consumers of caloric sweeteners ingest 316 kcal from HFCS/d. The increased use of HFCS in the United States mirrors the rapid increase in obesity. The digestion, absorption, and metabolism of fructose differ from those of glucose. Hepatic metabolism of fructose favors de novo lipogenesis. In addition, unlike glucose, fructose does not stimulate insulin secretion or enhance leptin production. Because insulin and leptin act as key afferent signals in the regulation of food intake and body weight, this suggests that dietary fructose may contribute to increased energy intake and weight gain. Furthermore, calorically sweetened beverages may enhance caloric overconsumption. Thus, the increase in consumption of HFCS has a temporal relation to the epidemic of obesity, and the overconsumption of HFCS in calorically sweetened beverages may play a role in the epidemic of obesity.
In conclusion, we believe that an argument can now be made that the use of HFCS in beverages should be reduced and that HFCS should be replaced with alternative noncaloric sweeteners. Sweetness is a preferred taste as well as an acquired one that may be enhanced by exposure to sweet foods. The hypothesis that providing sodas and juice drinks in which caloric sweeteners are partially or completely replaced with noncaloric sweeteners will help reduce the prevalence of obesity is worth testing. If the intake of calorically sweetened beverages is contributing to the current epidemic, then reducing the availability of these beverages by removing soda machines from schools would be a strategy worth considering, as would reducing the portion sizes of sodas that are commercially available (55).
Originally posted by BBalazs
reply to post by daskakik
So now we can establish, sugar has a toxic effect on the body.
Alcholol, nicotine are not present in 95% of our food supply, are they now?
Our bodies run on nutrition not empty calories, wouldn't you agree?
This would be a good thing, as these problems cost a lot of money, and create a generally bad atmosphere.
Plus valuable resources are spent researching areas of disease, which could VERY SIMPLY be avoided.
Wouldn't you agree?
If we establish a safe sugar consumption limit, it would probably mean, say 1/3 of a coke. So, yes people do overeat, however, I am certain that part of this overeating, comes from eating the wrong foods and being uneducated as to how nutrition works.
These very people could overeat spinach, vegetables and a lot of other things, and the same problems would not be present.
It doesn't really help to bash a professor speaking out on this.
As for causes of the obesity epidemic, you are wrong, the causes in at least 80% of the cases (educated guess) are pretty clear. I would point you in the direction of harvard study of last year examining how carbs, fats and proteins are digested. a repeated study. I would not give creedence to studies, that examine obesity without getting even the fundamentals right. It like blind people looking at the elephant, but the unfortunate fact remains: it is were clear, what causes obesity. HFCS is just one part, an important part, but only a part.
Originally posted by BBalazs
reply to post by daskakik
you just assume, people are making intelligent choices, and were they more aware they would choose the same junk in another form.
i disagree.
the professor is not being extremist. how can science be extremist. please explain this to me.
we have already established sugar is or acts exactly as a toxin.
how can explaining this be extremist?
according to what principle?
humans are individual, but their BODIES and HOW THEY BREAK DOWN FOOD is 99% the same.
Please prove to me that OUR BODIES inside and HOW WE BRAKE DOWN FOOD, is different!
Sure if we are already sick, it may change.
Once again, you are casting a wide net, yet I talk the basics.
We are essentially the same. The point are both valid and TRUE, to all non sick human beings!
facts can NEVER be extremists, but you can burry your head regarding them.
Aso I was not referencing princton, I was referencing harcard and multiple studies before that, on how the body breaks down carbs, proteins, fats.
1. I never said remove them, in fact I said I am against banning.
2. Neither you nor me knows what will happen!
We have to try to educate!
Based on this, nicotine should never have been examined or warnings issued. It should still be sold to infants as it where.
What people do with information is up to them, but suppressing information is not a valid point.
From your sly comments, it is my understanding you have a very good understanding of how nutrition works, and in a way are misinforming people here.
Well I have a very good understanding of nutrition and can see behind your sly points.
I agree, they probably will not do much (people in general), I am a skeptic on human behavior in general, though not in particular.
You seem to put the whole blame on people, I think this is unfair, given our knowledge.
Any fears you have an unfounded, exactly because human behavior is as it is.
But, in the end, if this was common knowledge we would not have to pay for the mistakes of others.
regarding the princeton study. it ones again boils down the basics. organic vs processed (artificial) fructose.
it would seem that our body can handle natural/organic glucose and frustose rich foods, much better then processed one. wouldn't you agree?
Originally posted by BG43214
reply to post by fulllotusqigong
......OK - so just WHO or WHAT is pointing a gun at your head and insisting you drink this crap!!?!?!!
Besides my OP I have 109 distinct external links (studies and vids) on this thread. ....Yet somehow I don't have any thoughts on the subject. ...I think you'll find my thoughts obvious from my 111 links.
Originally posted by soficrow
reply to post by fulllotusqigong
Besides my OP I have 109 distinct external links (studies and vids) on this thread. ....Yet somehow I don't have any thoughts on the subject. ...I think you'll find my thoughts obvious from my 111 links.
I've made specific points and asked specific questions you have repeatedly ignored, except to link and relink the OP article and reprints. This is the only time you have directly addressed one of my points.
....As I've also said repeatedly, I agree that Coca Cola and high fructose corn syrup are horrifically bad - just NOT the only culprit. My concern is that an exclusive focus on HFCS deflects attention from the numerous other environmental contaminants with the same epigenetic effects on hormones, takes the heat off other industries - and supports the strategy to "blame the victims."
edit on 2/2/12 by soficrow because: (no reason given)
First, the facts: Americans drank 13.8 billion gallons of soda, punch, sports drinks, sweet tea and other high-calorie, nutrient-free beverages in 2009, according to industry data. That works out to about 70,000 calories a person. The sugar in all this "liquid candy," as it is often called, is considered to be a major contributing factor to the obesity crisis, which in turn has fueled the rise of Type 2 diabetes and other diseases.
Originally posted by fulllotusqigong
The OP has one article from Mercola that I have never posted again so it's never been a "relink" nor have I ever posted a "reprint." I have posted 112 distinctly different links on this thread. If people don't consider new information that I post as a reply then "willful ignorance" is not really a discussion. Willful ignorance is a state of denial. haha.
the main critic on this thread has stated refusal to watch the OP science lecture! haha.
Now some have claimed that a poison is o.k. because it's no different than alcohol or nicotine -- but both of those are restricted in sales.
Contaminant:
a substance that makes something dirty, polluted, or poisonous
Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd
Again that all sounds great and I follow but you seem to be talking about people that have gone past a certain stage of metabolic syndrome.
Craving sugar because your hypoglycemic and craving it because you had a coke for lunch isn't the same. That is what the OP seems to be saying. Having one coke makes you crave another. It started off with the 55 mg of sodium making you thirsty but then it turned into hfcs is as addictive as heroin.
Then came the Princeton study as scientific proof. Problem is that they, as you also seem to be doing, only focus on the rats given hfcs+water 24 hours a day. Of course this poor animals where sick by the end of the trial but the ones with limited hfcs+water, limited food and plain water did about the same.
The most noticable thing in that trial was that all the animals despite having had up to 7 months of daily hfcs had normal insulin levels. So even daily intake of hfcs didn't get them to the stage that you are describing in your previous post.
I'm sure that some people would show damage in less time then others but then you are getting into individual cases. People with celiac disease are not going around calling for the banning of products with gluten just because their body can't handle it.
A recent study from the Duke University Medical Center reported that daily consumption of fructose, the most common and widely used sweetener (ex: High-Fructose Corn Syrup), increases liver fibrosis, which leads to scarring of the liver and, ultimately, progressive loss of liver function. Fructose, and this includes high-fructose corn syrup or corn sugar or whatever seemingly innocent name they’re giving it today, are among the worst dietary chemicals consumed by people on a daily basis. Fructose is actually very poorly metabolized by the cells of the body and so, the liver absorbs the fructose and turns it into fat. A portion of this fat is stored in the liver, compromising the health of this vital organ. With proper diet of primarily vegetables, nuts, seeds, some fruits, olive oil (shown to contain liver-protective antioxidants) and regular exercise (work up a sweat 3-4 days/week) as well as limiting alcohol and sugar consumption, the liver has an amazing ability to regenerate and can function as well at age 99 as it did at age 9. However, once it’s scarred, the scars remain for life. Take good care of your liver and do a periodic liver cleanse. Compared to sucrose, fructose is very difficult for cells to metabolize and utilize. Sucrose is easily broken down and the glucose is converted to energy through various processes in the mitochondria…fructose is not. So, all sugar is not the same…sugar is NOT sugar! Different forms of sugar are metabolized by the body in very different ways. Sucrose is actually a disaccharide which is a combination of two saccharide molecules. In the case of sucrose, the two saccharides are glucose and fructose. So, sucrose is 50% fructose and 50% glucose whereas High Fructose Corn Syrup is either 42%, 55%, or 90% fructose depending on the application. That’s right, there are actually 3 different types of HFCS used in various food stuffs from drinks, to baked goods, and everything in between. Table sugar is bad enough, so why consume all that extra fructose? Some people like to argue that fructose is found naturally in fruits, but they always seem to forget that fresh fruits provide enzymes that assist in the metabolism of the sugar. HFCS is highly, highly processed and provides no enzymatic assistance.
Nature 482, 27–29 (02 February 2012) doi:10.1038/482027a Published online 01 February 2012 Added sweeteners pose dangers to health that justify controlling them like alcohol, argue Robert H. Lustig, Laura A. Schmidt and Claire D. Brindis.