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.

 

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

page: 25
141
<< 22  23  24    26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 11:06 PM
link   
I thought it was high fructose corn syrup since it doesn't metabolize through your liver and gets stored as fat right away. Because of that your body doesn't recognize the carbs and people continue to feel hungry and unsatisfied. It's in almost every thing so using that as an activator for yeast or a sweetener just seems more like a scam to get people to eat more.
I saw on the news this morning that the FDA wants to treat pure cane sugar like a drug. That sounds like good news for the corn syrup. I wonder if Monsanto has anything to do with that?


Sorry if this stuff has been covered all ready.

Somewhere out there is common sense all bent over and gasping for breath.




posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 11:16 PM
link   

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....

edit on 1-2-2012 by fulllotusqigong because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 11:41 PM
link   

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



You know a few people who have never touched a soda in their lives? I call BS sir. I know of not one person that hasn't at least tried a soda or pop in their lives. Doesnt drink it current? sure. Never had it, what ever.



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 01:15 AM
link   
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)



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 01:59 AM
link   
reply to post by BBalazs
 

I take that it wasn't the OP that you were replying to but me. Assumptions? I think not. The scientific studies, that the OP posted, show that moderate consumption does not constitute any greater threat than doing without.

Toxins? They may very well both be but in moderate amounts they don't overwhelm the body's capacity to asimilate and neutralize them. Even water becomes a threat if the amount is right.

Nicotine is a greater poison but in small amounts has proven to stave off Alzheimer's and Parkinson's

Just because our bodies don't need sugar doesn't mean that i bit now and then is going to cause death and that is what makes the whole thing alarmist.


edit on 2-2-2012 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 02:10 AM
link   

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)


Consumption of high-fructose corn syrup in beverages may play a role in the epidemic of obesity1,2



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).

edit on 2-2-2012 by fulllotusqigong because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 02:11 AM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 

Now we are on the same page at least.
Off course I was replying to you, there are 20 some pages before this.
So now we can establish, sugar has a toxic effect on the body.
Sugar is not vital, is not even needed for the body to function.
And yes, I have pointed out also, that in small amounts, it probably doesn't overwhelm the body.
But the fact remains this:
Alcholol, nicotine are not present is 95% of our food supply, are they now?
This is the point I am trying to make.
I am not advocating banning anything.
I advocate education.
If people were made aware of how dangerous this stuff is in access, how unneeded it is, and how the sugar can in fact store other toxins present in processed foods in the body fat (there is considerable evidence for this), then it would lead to an altered lifestyle for many. Also the fact that it contains little nutritional value.
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?
We pretty much control alcohol and nicotine, or at the very least people are aware if its harm.
Most people are however not aware that sugar(s) are so harmful.
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.
Because the implications of these effect US ALL.


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.
edit on 2-2-2012 by BBalazs because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 02:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by BBalazs
reply to post by daskakik
 

So now we can establish, sugar has a toxic effect on the body.

Only if the amounts are toxic.


Alcholol, nicotine are not present in 95% of our food supply, are they now?

That amount of sugar is also not present in mine becuase I control what I put in my body.


Our bodies run on nutrition not empty calories, wouldn't you agree?

It would seem but the truth is that some peoples bodies are not able to convey this message to their brains or their brains choose to ignore it.


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?

It seems that more than a few people gain from this. Maybe that is why things don't change or they change for the worse.


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.

There are way too many sources of empty calories. This is the reason that I have been harping on the Princeton study. The rats with nothing to drink but water but all you can eat, as far as chow, didn't do much better than the rats given hfcs.


These very people could overeat spinach, vegetables and a lot of other things, and the same problems would not be present.

But they choose not to, for whatever reason.


It doesn't really help to bash a professor speaking out on this.

The problem that I have with the professor is that he is being extremist. He isn't taking into account how unique every human bieng is. Unlike you, he believes that a one size fits all legislation is going to do away with the obesity problem that the US is experiencing.


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.

The problem that I see is that if you remove one source of empty calories another will take its place so in the end nothing is really accomplished.


edit on 2-2-2012 by daskakik because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-2-2012 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 03:10 AM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 

well I cannot quote you like you did, so I have to go on my memory of what you wrote.
but you are basically not arguing with anything I have written.
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!
Or is it the norm to toxicfy your body? then yes, he is extremist!
you just call him extremist, and I don't think he is.
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.

You are also making assumptions.
1. I never said remove them, in fact I said I am against banning.
2. Neither you nor me knows what will happen!
It may very well lead to another empty nutritionaless food, or it may not.
We have to try to educate!
For in the end, it us who pay the price for the recklessness of others!
Not trying is not progress, it is a head in the sand attitude!
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.
It boils down to this
eople in general do not really have a choice. They trust the supermarket, the trust the fda, etc.
Is this trust misplaced?
Yes.
Are they to blame?
Only in part is what I say.
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?
there are so many point why this maybe the case, that it is impossible to list them all. non the less, tho seems to be the case.
edit on 2-2-2012 by BBalazs because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 03:15 AM
link   
reply to post by fulllotusqigong
 


I am not surprised for some reason. The only non-fructose soda Walmart sells last's longer for me, yet is in a smaller bottle then Pepsi or Cola. It is a Mexican import(I have to admit they do make good soda's) so it is most of the time in the Hispanic food section. It seems they like to move it around. Last time it was by the ramen noodles..



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 09:49 AM
link   

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.

I'm not saying that they are making intelligent choices. I'm saying that they are free to make whatever dumb choice they choose to make.


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?

I disagree. The word toxin is reserved for things that are toxic in small doses. Everything is toxic in large doses. Even water. The doctor is saying that sugar needs to be regulated because at a certain dose it can become toxic. So can most things but we don't go around banning everything under the sun because of this.


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!

And our bodies have shown that they can injest moderate amounts of sugar and digest them just fine. People have been doing this for as long as man has walked the earth.


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!

The opposite is true. most people have no problem injesting sugar. It is those that are sick, hypo or hyperglycemic, thay have trouble with it.


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.

And the fact is that billions of people digest sugar every day just fine and have done so for millions of years so to say the opposite is to lie.


1. I never said remove them, in fact I said I am against banning.

The OP has.


2. Neither you nor me knows what will happen!

I do know because there are countries where hfcs is hardly used but there is still obesity so it would only be logical to think that if the US bans hfcs obesity would not disappear.


We have to try to educate!

People already know.


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.

All I was pointing out was that even real toxins have their good uses.


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.

How is telling the truth misinforming people?


You seem to put the whole blame on people, I think this is unfair, given our knowledge.

I think it is fair because we are told that junk food is junk throughout our lives.


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.

I have no fears. Don't really know what you mean.


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?

No the princeton study used hfcs (processed) in water and in more than moderate amounts this still didn't show that there was much of a difference.



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 10:27 AM
link   
reply to post by fulllotusqigong
 


......OK - so just WHO or WHAT is pointing a gun at your head and insisting you drink this crap!!?!?!!



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 10:30 AM
link   

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!!?!?!!



EXACTAMUNDO!!!



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 10:33 AM
link   
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)



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 03:33 PM
link   

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)


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.

There is a lot of denial about fructose being a poison. Probably because people don't really study the metabolic science -- as I stated it takes repeated viewing of the original science lecture to follow the several ways that fructose causes problems in the body. But instead of relying on people to actually watch the video -- the main critic on this thread has stated refusal to watch the OP science lecture! haha. So instead of relying on people to watch the OP science lecture I have posted links to the direct studies that are referred to in the OP lecture and also discussion of those studies and other videos, etc. I have posted other lectures of Dr. Lustig but those other lectures have new information in them as well. I have reposted some information but that is not included in the 112 distinctly different links I have provided.

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. HFCS is the main ingredient being promoted to kids -- it's far beyond being a contaminant. To claim focusing on HFCS deflects attention from other contaminants -- well it's an interesting claim since the argument here is to first establish that HFCS is a poison. I'm glad you agree it is a poison. The levels of HFCS are massively more than any other contaminant in our diet.

The topic of this thread is fructose as a poison. HFCS is used in massive amounts and promoted as just a sweetner. It's not normally considered a poison.

So if you think that focusing on HFCS is a problem because it distracts from other contaminants that position is not accurate. HFCS is not even regulated as a contaminant and it's heavily subsidied by billions of dollars in welfare and it's the main ingredient in vending machines found in schools, workplaces, etc. Yes HFCS is a poison but it's more than a contaminant -- it's the main ingredient for a primary source of calories in the U.S. diet, as directed and promoted by citizen tax dollars. That's what makes this a conspiracy -- it's hiding in plain sight, funded by welfare, and causing an epidemic of deadly disease.

A contaminant implies something that is in small amounts that got in by accident or is hidden. Sure when products are labeled as "sugar free" but then have HFCS in them and people buy "sugar free" because they think it is healthier -- yes this is similar to contamination. But normally HFCS is the main ingredient in sodas and HFCS relies on billions of dollars in tax payer welfare.

People are normally against welfare -- for promoting laziness, etc. So this is billions of dollars of welfare that no only causes laziness but also causes deadly disease -- funded by hard working tax dollars.

This is the Coca-Cola Conspiracy.

Would you cut back on soda if you had to pay a tax on it?




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.


The funny thing about this article is HFCS is subsidized by welfare for billions of dollars! All we have to do is stop paying the government welfare to HFCS and then the true cost would be about $4 a soda.

Instead this article argues the tax proposed would not be high enough to make a difference.

People are already paying $4 extra a soda -- but do so through taxes (and extra healthcare costs).

So just stop the welfare -- the government promotion of HFCS.

No tax is necessary. We're already being taxed way more than is being proposed.


edit on 2-2-2012 by fulllotusqigong because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 04:22 PM
link   

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.

Which is exactly what you are doing when the other groups in the Princeton study are pointed out.


the main critic on this thread has stated refusal to watch the OP science lecture! haha.

Why is this funny? I have seen the argument before. Why waste my time?


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.

What is the LD50 of hfcs?

Oh and by the way posting links isn't giving your thoughts on the subject it is giving somebody elses.



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by fulllotusqigong
 


As I've said in every post I've made here - there is no doubt HFCS is horrible. However, it is NOT the "cause" of the U.S. obesity epidemic - just one of the causes, and just one of over 25 already-identified obesogens. Moreover, obesity is pandemic, and has spread around the world along with heart disease, cancer, diabetes, and lung disease.

Our world is full of obesogens and other poisons that contaminate our food, air, water, milk, homes, personal products and more. Look up BPA for starters. You are quite wrong when you say, "A contaminant implies something that is in small amounts that got in by accident or is hidden."


Contaminant:

a substance that makes something dirty, polluted, or poisonous



It is one thing to focus on HFCS - quite another to insist HFCS is the only culprit. Our world is full of noxious, toxic and poisonous contaminants - they are not hidden, just ignored and dismissed by people like you.

edit on 2/2/12 by soficrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 07:55 PM
link   

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.


It's a vicious cycle that is perpetuated once insulin resistance begins. It doesn't just happen suddenly once we reach a degree of insulin resistance.


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.


I'm not really sure why you think I'm the OP's little defense-man. I've been specifically responding to posts as they pertain to obesity and how exercise/nutrition play a role.


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.


When have I mentioned anything about rats being fed HFCS vs Sucrose? I'm not arguing that HFCS is any worse than sucrose. I think the data is too ambiguous to make such a claim. In any case, the difference would be modest. In which case, telling someone to choose sucrose over HFCS would be likened to getting hit head on in a car accident at 50mph vs 70mph.


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.


Well, although most studies on the effects of HFCS/Sucrose show exactly opposite results, I'd still be willing to look at why these results were observed. Could you please link the study?


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.



Ok. I'll be clear. I don't want to ban HFCS. I never once suggested it. I didn't join this thread to defend the OP. I joined the discussion to point out flaws as they relate to obesity, specifically on energy balance.



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 08:35 PM
link   
reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd
 

Here is the link to the Princeton Study

I understand that you want to talk about obesity and the thread has it in the title but I'm not sure this is the thread to have a well balanced discussion about it. If it can even be done on ATS.



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 08:40 PM
link   


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.


Sugar is Sugar, Right? But Which One Causes Liver Failure?

Yeah I provided a link for banning HFCS.

So it was erroneously claimed I said I wanted to ban HFCS.

If HFCS was banned that would be great -- it's a poison.

A poison should be banned from food.

As for the rat study -- as I've pointed out it's based on the rate of weight growth. This point though continues to be ignored, just as the actual science lecture was ignored. haha.

So now a tax is being called for -- but as I've stated -- people already pay a tax on HFCS that is much higher then the additional tax being called for.

That fructose is considered a poison is now a fact -- as I gave the quote for in the article on taxing HFCS.

So the thread has left it's one critic in the dust - who played the game of "willful ignorance."

Willful ignorance is a terrible strategy to claim some point about anything.

The supposed studies claiming fructose is not bad for you are the studies funded by the corn refiners association and the soda industry!

I've already exposed this on this thread.

So again I've made 113 distinct links on this thread.

The science is clear. Fructose is a poison.

In fruit there are enzymes to help digest the fructose properly which is then in very small amounts compared to the fiber.

So to continue debating about which is worse fructose or sucrose (which is half fructose) or synthetic sugar -- HFCS -- it is pointless as you've pointed out.

HFCS does vastly increase the reactive carbonyls and so HFCS is worse.

But fructose is a poison even in sucrose.

The latest research is in the journal Nature of this week.

Public health: The toxic truth about sugar

So the person who refused to watch the OP science lecture now has to contend that the lecturer is published in the most prestigious science journal with the facts that sugar is toxic.




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.


So should HFCS be banned? Yes like alcohol is banned from workplaces and schools. HFCS should be treated like a poison just like alcohol.


edit on 2-2-2012 by fulllotusqigong because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-2-2012 by fulllotusqigong because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
141
<< 22  23  24    26  27 >>

log in

join