Sugar Should Be Regulated As Toxin, Researchers Say

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
One more thing for the Totalitarian Nanny State to regulate. Time to go buy another bag of sugar. Aspartame is toxic but the FDA approved it, now regular cane sugar is going to be regulated? I think Congress has really gone berserk.

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

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

HFCS is the main sugar -- it's grown from welfare -- tax money promotes poison

“Sweetening the Pot: Implicit Subsidies to Corn Sweeteners and the U.S. Obesity Epidemic.”

If corn had been priced at its true cost, HFCS- 55 prices (the major sweetener for so􀄞 drinks) would have been an estimated 8.8% higher, a figure consistent with Beghin and Jensen’s study.18 ERS data indicates that in 2002, 8 billion pounds of HFCS were used in so􀄞 drinks, with a value of over $1.1 billion.19 If corn were priced at its true cost, then, soda makers would have spent $97 million more in production costs that year alone. Multiplied out over the nine-year period of our study, that would come to $873 million in savings to soda-makers from below-cost corn.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Reply to post by dawnstar

 

I have an old Betty Crocker cookbook from the 50's.

Everything is cups of sugar and pounds of straight lard.

Yet where was obesity then? Where were all the fat kids?

 

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

 

Remember something....back in the 50s, a bottle of soda was 6-8 oz, not the 20-32 oz that seems to be the standard today, a candy bar was roughly 2/3 the current size, and a 'quarter pounder' hamburger was the jumbo size, not the centerpiece of the Kiddie Meal. Kids, in particular, were more physically active (this is, of course, a generalization...there will always be certain kids who sit and do very little, and others who can't sit still for more than a few seconds). The upshot of this being that while home cooking was higher in fats and sugars, the overall intake was lower, and it was burned off to a large extent by exercise.

Not a 'kids' example, but my paternal grandfather (1898 - 1982) typically broke his fast each morning with 2-3 fried eggs (fried in butter, thank you very much), a helping of fried potatoes with onion, 2-3 biscuits (1 with butter and jam, two with milk gravy), and either sausage or bacon, all washed down with 2-3 cups of coffee. That's enough fat, sugar, and calories to make a 21st century dietician faint dead away, and yet Grandpa Walter never in his life topped 150 lbs, and other than lung cancer (don't get me started on smoking), was in excellent physical shape right up until the day he died in his sleep. It wasn't magical, it was simply that he'd rise and shine at 4:00AM, and work his farm (400 acres of mixed use...dairy and beef cattle, and truck farming plots) until sundown, at a pace that would leave his teenaged grandson worn to a husk. Sugar and fat are only really bad if you're sedentary...if you're active, they're nothing more (or less) than fuel for the body's metabolic engine. For a more modern example, look at Michael Phelps.

Read the Article

To begin with, this isn't a research publication. This is a poorly thought out opinion article.

If you're going to talk about sugar, you have to define it. Are you talking about glucose, sucrose, fructose, lactose? Are you talking about HFCS, which is a mixture of glucose and fructose? All sugar is not created equal. The only sugar specifically mentioned in this article as being toxic is fructose. Fructose happens to be the sugar in fruit. Does anyone really want to make the argument that an apple is toxic? I hope not, because you'd be wrong.

This article proposes that sugar (the end of the article does not specify fructose) should be regulated and also equates the danger of sugar with that of tobacco and alcohol. I'm not even going to address the proposed equality of danger between sugar and tobacco/alcohol due to idiocy of that idea. On to regulation. How far would the proposed regulation extend? Would the regulations only apply to the commercial production of sugar or would it be possible for the government to root up the apple tree in your back yard? What about bread, potatoes, carrots, juices? Birthday cake? Would those along with anything else containing carbohydrates be regulated? Before someone points out that my slippery-slope argument is a logical fallacy and ridiculous, save your time. I know. It's intended to point out how asinine the whole idea of regulating sugar is.

Furthermore, people are responsible for their own health. If you don't realize that eating a ridiculous amount of sugar is detrimental to your health, you're the only one to blame for that. Too much of anything is generally a bad idea. The linkage between obesity, diabetes, heart disease, hypertension, and stoke (I could go on) is common knowledge. You know how the end is going to come if you weigh 400lbs and have never set foot in a gym. Don't be surprised when you go out with a bang in an ER after having a massive MI. You'll be in an incredible amount of pain, stuck by needles, your ribs will probably be broken by chest compressions, you'll be defibrillated, and none of your family will be with you when it all ends. I hope all those twinkies were worth that one last trip to the hospital.

I'm really shocked and amazed how many people on this advanced conspiracy theory site are willing to accept Nanny Statism and socialism, even communism in the name of taking care of us cradle to grave.

Originally posted by alkali
Read the Article

To begin with, this isn't a research publication. This is a poorly thought out opinion article.

If you're going to talk about sugar, you have to define it. Are you talking about glucose, sucrose, fructose, lactose? Are you talking about HFCS, which is a mixture of glucose and fructose? All sugar is not created equal. The only sugar specifically mentioned in this article as being toxic is fructose. Fructose happens to be the sugar in fruit. Does anyone really want to make the argument that an apple is toxic? I hope not, because you'd be wrong.

This article proposes that sugar (the end of the article does not specify fructose) should be regulated and also equates the danger of sugar with that of tobacco and alcohol. I'm not even going to address the proposed equality of danger between sugar and tobacco/alcohol due to idiocy of that idea. On to regulation. How far would the proposed regulation extend? Would the regulations only apply to the commercial production of sugar or would it be possible for the government to root up the apple tree in your back yard? What about bread, potatoes, carrots, juices? Birthday cake? Would those along with anything else containing carbohydrates be regulated? Before someone points out that my slippery-slope argument is a logical fallacy and ridiculous, save your time. I know. It's intended to point out how asinine the whole idea of regulating sugar is.

Furthermore, people are responsible for their own health. If you don't realize that eating a ridiculous amount of sugar is detrimental to your health, you're the only one to blame for that. Too much of anything is generally a bad idea. The linkage between obesity, diabetes, heart disease, hypertension, and stoke (I could go on) is common knowledge. You know how the end is going to come if you weigh 400lbs and have never set foot in a gym. Don't be surprised when you go out with a bang in an ER after having a massive MI. You'll be in an incredible amount of pain, stuck by needles, your ribs will probably be broken by chest compressions, you'll be defibrillated, and none of your family will be with you when it all ends. I hope all those twinkies were worth that one last trip to the hospital.

How HFCS rewires the brain for dopamine addiction

Shadowing the same receptor pathways of other ingested addictive chemicals, including coc aine and opiates, High Fructose Corn Syrup alters the transmission of certain brain chemicals including endorphins, dopamine and serotonin, which, in turn, trigger the pleasure center of our brains, leaving us wanting more. It is important to note that with the incorporation of HFCS into food products have raised more than 1000% since 1970. A 2007 study (Lenoir M, Serre F, Cantin L, Ahmed SH ), found that intense sweetness surpasses coc aine reward even in addicted and drug-sensitized individuals leading to increased aggression upon withdrawal and a disruption of the dopamine/acetylcholine reward balance in the brain. As the alterations on brain function brought on by HFCS produce many of these hallmarks of addiction - including intense craving, the inability to control or stop use, a pre-occupation with the substance, and withdrawal symptoms - the idea of dessert becomes elevated to a whole new level.

reply to post by alkali


And aspartame isn't even sugar, it's a substitute. So these people want to regulate sugars, but aspartame is safe from the axe because it's technically not sugar.
What a joke.

MSG is also something added to foods which is an excitotoxin.

I'd love to see less sugar hidden in foods where you don't expect it, but that's why I read labels.

Some friends of mine were talking last week about how you cannot buy large quantities of sugar at certain places.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by alkali

 

And aspartame isn't even sugar, it's a substitute. So these people want to regulate sugars, but aspartame is safe from the axe because it's technically not sugar.
What a joke.

MSG is also something added to foods which is an excitotoxin.

I'd love to see less sugar hidden in foods where you don't expect it, but that's why I read labels.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
I'm really shocked and amazed how many people on this advanced conspiracy theory site are willing to accept Nanny Statism and socialism, even communism in the name of taking care of us cradle to grave.

5 Reasons High Fructose Corn Syrup Will Kill You

reply to post by SoymilkAlaska
Since high fructose corn syrup is in everything, it's just a way forgovernment to control what/how much we eat.

And the loon doing the study is out of San Fran. Which explains sooooooo much!

(apologies if this is a repeat, still reading all the posts)

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by SoymilkAlaska

 

Since high fructose corn syrup is in everything, it's just a way forgovernment to control what/how much we eat.

And the loon doing the study is out of San Fran. Which explains sooooooo much!

(apologies if this is a repeat, still reading all the posts)

A sweet problem: Princeton researchers find that high-fructose corn syrup prompts considerably more weight gain

Compared to animals eating only rat chow, rats on a diet rich in high-fructose corn syrup showed characteristic signs of a dangerous condition known in humans as the metabolic syndrome, including abnormal weight gain, significant increases in circulating triglycerides and augmented fat deposition, especially visceral fat around the belly.

Originally posted by fulllotusqigong

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
I'm really shocked and amazed how many people on this advanced conspiracy theory site are willing to accept Nanny Statism and socialism, even communism in the name of taking care of us cradle to grave.

5 Reasons High Fructose Corn Syrup Will Kill You

ok I understand you have a beef about corn syrup. I don't see where that article is targeting corn syrup, I see that it treats all sugar the same.
Are they going to tax honey as well?

reply to post by fulllotusqigong
Fine. Eat less. Exercise more. Switch to natural sugars.

I will not have this government, any government determine what I can or cannot eat!!!!!!!!

I wonder when it will just be accepted that life kills us?

reply to post by fulllotusqigong

Instead of cluttering up this thread with all your links you should just link them to your thread on the subject.

Here

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by fulllotusqigong

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
I'm really shocked and amazed how many people on this advanced conspiracy theory site are willing to accept Nanny Statism and socialism, even communism in the name of taking care of us cradle to grave.

5 Reasons High Fructose Corn Syrup Will Kill You

ok I understand you have a beef about corn syrup. I don't see where that article is targeting corn syrup, I see that it treats all sugar the same.
Are they going to tax honey as well?

HFCS intake has increased 1000%

And if you take that sugar in liquid form — soda or fruit juices — the fructose and glucose will hit the liver more quickly than if you consume them, say, in an apple (or several apples, to get what researchers would call the equivalent dose of sugar). The speed with which the liver has to do its work will also affect how it metabolizes the fructose and glucose. In animals, or at least in laboratory rats and mice, it’s clear that if the fructose hits the liver in sufficient quantity and with sufficient speed, the liver will convert much of it to fat. This apparently induces a condition known as insulin resistance, which is now considered the fundamental problem in obesity, and the underlying defect in heart disease and in the type of diabetes, type 2, that is common to obese and overweight individuals. It might also be the underlying defect in many cancers.

Originally posted by fulllotusqigong

How HFCS rewires the brain for dopamine addiction

Shadowing the same receptor pathways of other ingested addictive chemicals, including coc aine and opiates, High Fructose Corn Syrup alters the transmission of certain brain chemicals including endorphins, dopamine and serotonin, which, in turn, trigger the pleasure center of our brains, leaving us wanting more. It is important to note that with the incorporation of HFCS into food products have raised more than 1000% since 1970. A 2007 study (Lenoir M, Serre F, Cantin L, Ahmed SH ), found that intense sweetness surpasses coc aine reward even in addicted and drug-sensitized individuals leading to increased aggression upon withdrawal and a disruption of the dopamine/acetylcholine reward balance in the brain. As the alterations on brain function brought on by HFCS produce many of these hallmarks of addiction - including intense craving, the inability to control or stop use, a pre-occupation with the substance, and withdrawal symptoms - the idea of dessert becomes elevated to a whole new level.

That's a bit misleading. The study cited in your article is on coc aine vs. saccharin, not coc aine vs. HFCS.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


FYI, fulllotusqigong doesn't do much discussing just posts link after link and parrots what is in those links like gospel.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by fulllotusqigong

 

Fine. Eat less. Exercise more. Switch to natural sugars.

I will not have this government, any government determine what I can or cannot eat!!!!!!!!

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

See, that's how I feel. It's for me to decide, but I would like to see less of that corn stuff in foods that don't need it. I just feel that the nanny state has grown waaaay too big and this is just one more nail in the coffin.

Originally posted by alkali

Originally posted by fulllotusqigong

How HFCS rewires the brain for dopamine addiction

Shadowing the same receptor pathways of other ingested addictive chemicals, including coc aine and opiates, High Fructose Corn Syrup alters the transmission of certain brain chemicals including endorphins, dopamine and serotonin, which, in turn, trigger the pleasure center of our brains, leaving us wanting more. It is important to note that with the incorporation of HFCS into food products have raised more than 1000% since 1970. A 2007 study (Lenoir M, Serre F, Cantin L, Ahmed SH ), found that intense sweetness surpasses coc aine reward even in addicted and drug-sensitized individuals leading to increased aggression upon withdrawal and a disruption of the dopamine/acetylcholine reward balance in the brain. As the alterations on brain function brought on by HFCS produce many of these hallmarks of addiction - including intense craving, the inability to control or stop use, a pre-occupation with the substance, and withdrawal symptoms - the idea of dessert becomes elevated to a whole new level.

That's a bit misleading. The study cited in your article is on coc aine vs. saccharin, not coc aine vs. HFCS.

Intense Sweetness Surpasses Cocaine Reward

The preference for saccharin was not attributable to its unnatural ability to induce sweetness without calories because the same preference was also observed with sucrose, a natural sugar.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by fulllotusqigong

 

Fine. Eat less. Exercise more. Switch to natural sugars.

I will not have this government, any government determine what I can or cannot eat!!!!!!!!

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

See, that's how I feel. It's for me to decide, but I would like to see less of that corn stuff in foods that don't need it. I just feel that the nanny state has grown waaaay too big and this is just one more nail in the coffin.

The government is already taxing you tons of money to then put HFCS in everything:

Adding this rough estimate of the implicit subsidy to HFCS from 1986-96 to the more detailed estimate for 1997-2005, we get estimated savings to HFCS producers from belowcost corn of more than $4 billion for the twenty-year period. Estimated savings for soda makers since the wholesale adoption of HFCS in the mid-eighties are $1.7 billion.