Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

High Fructose Corn Syrup is killing all of us

page: 7
49
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
But try setting my children down to a plate of washed roots, greens and freshly skinning rodents.


Tell me about it, lol. But it doesn't have to be that extreme. Grass fed beef is a good alternative, free range chicken, pork, etc. Just avoid the cheap crap. Also, any fruit and vegetable, nuts, that can be eaten raw, and although some people's interpretation of the paleo diet excludes tubers like potatoes, yams, etc., there are several modern hunter gatherer tribes that eat a lot of tubers, and I do too. There are actually many paleo friendly baked goods using ground almond flour. Fills you up, with no high glycemic crash later.




posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 12:41 PM
link   
Another effect of our modern agricultural diet is our population explosion. There is no way we could all eat the way we should, there would not be enough food to sustain it. Without fast growing grains, half the world would starve. So, it's almost a necessary trade off for nature to kill us off with heart disease and cancer from all these foods we weren't genetically engineered to eat, otherwise we'd be even more overpopulated than we are.



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 01:19 PM
link   
One final dietary related comment from me. Another way we shoot ourselves in the foot healthwise, is the idea that we must eat 3 square meals a day. That's another thing our bodies weren't engineered to do. We were meant to encounter times of little food availability. It is a big job for our bodies to digest food, and takes a lot of blood to do so. All the while other tasks our blood is meant to perform don't get done. If once a week everybody skipped breakfast and lunch, their health would improve greatly. That's a 24 hour fast, it's hard to do when you eat a lot of highly processed, high glycemic foods because those foods are addictive like alcohol and cigarettes. But if you eat dinner, go to bed, and not eat again until dinner the next day, your body will use the blood to clean itself up and filter out toxins.



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Garfee
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst
 


You simply can't tell people what to do and what not to do. This is what regulation is. If you come to my house and tell me this I will punch you so why do you think I will allow it from my government any longer?

I put into my body whatever I damn well please because I own it. I can't believe you think we need even more regulations when if anything we need less! People need to feel as though they are respected, not dictated to.

There is a huge difference between regulation and education.



I certainly don't want to get between you and your illusion of freedom.

Everything you eat is regulated -- otherwise we'd be having weekly bulletins on which foods to avoid; "Kraft macaroni and cheese packets kill 12 this week, time to shift to using Mueller's spaghetti folks,..."

And those seat belts and stop signs on the road -- better get busy punching a lot of people.

Other than living in the woods and hunting deer -- which might support 100,000 people -- the REST OF US, have to set up some ground rules so we don't just walk all over each other. It's called civilization.

I don't want to tell you what to do in your bedroom, and you can certainly bake your own high starch happy meal at home -- you can even poor all the corn syrup on your pancakes behind closed doors.

>> We can however, improve life for a lot of people and lower health costs by "shifting taxes" from things that we want people to do and consume, and putting them on things that are intrinsically bad. Instead of taxing all the food you eat at a restaurant -- we could shift from the Sweet Potatoes and only tax the soda and the cupcakes. That's just an idea -- I'm certainly not married to it.

We can DEMOCRATICALLY (if of course, you actually have handcounted ballots -- everyone else can just GUESS what the vote was) elect people or kick them out of office. It's not IMPOSING our will -- because people can still choose to do the wrong thing, and they can still buy bullets and Nutrasweet. It's just that we already regulate things like Lead, because they are a poison - and in this case, we can have our representatives make poisonous foods a little less "shoved in our face."

Some people complain about the Gay Agenda being shoved in their face -- how much more shoved in your face is eating a Donut? America is getting sick from the Bad Food / High Profit agenda getting shoved down it's throat. I know -- it's not a pretty picture.



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst

Originally posted by Garfee
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst
 


You simply can't tell people what to do and what not to do. This is what regulation is. If you come to my house and tell me this I will punch you so why do you think I will allow it from my government any longer?

I put into my body whatever I damn well please because I own it. I can't believe you think we need even more regulations when if anything we need less! People need to feel as though they are respected, not dictated to.

There is a huge difference between regulation and education.



I certainly don't want to get between you and your illusion of freedom.

Everything you eat is regulated -- otherwise we'd be having weekly bulletins on which foods to avoid; "Kraft macaroni and cheese packets kill 12 this week, time to shift to using Mueller's spaghetti folks,..."

And those seat belts and stop signs on the road -- better get busy punching a lot of people.

Other than living in the woods and hunting deer -- which might support 100,000 people -- the REST OF US, have to set up some ground rules so we don't just walk all over each other. It's called civilization.

I don't want to tell you what to do in your bedroom, and you can certainly bake your own high starch happy meal at home -- you can even poor all the corn syrup on your pancakes behind closed doors.

>> We can however, improve life for a lot of people and lower health costs by "shifting taxes" from things that we want people to do and consume, and putting them on things that are intrinsically bad. Instead of taxing all the food you eat at a restaurant -- we could shift from the Sweet Potatoes and only tax the soda and the cupcakes. That's just an idea -- I'm certainly not married to it.

We can DEMOCRATICALLY (if of course, you actually have handcounted ballots -- everyone else can just GUESS what the vote was) elect people or kick them out of office. It's not IMPOSING our will -- because people can still choose to do the wrong thing, and they can still buy bullets and Nutrasweet. It's just that we already regulate things like Lead, because they are a poison - and in this case, we can have our representatives make poisonous foods a little less "shoved in our face."

Some people complain about the Gay Agenda being shoved in their face -- how much more shoved in your face is eating a Donut? America is getting sick from the Bad Food / High Profit agenda getting shoved down it's throat. I know -- it's not a pretty picture.


Well, I certainly wouldn't like to get between you and your aspirations of world domination. Can you please explain how you have moved your diatribe from why I should be banned from eating what I please to gun control and some non-existent gay-agenda? Are you on pills?

You seem to have a fetish for taxing the crap out of the population as a means to control their choices - are you paid by satan to say these things or do you actually believe this crap?



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 10:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by SuperTripps

Get off their food pyramid

Its ponzi and fraud of the cabal kind


I agree, when I did an Akins style diet I never felt so healthy. I ate carbs as I needed them (like going to the gym) outside of that I ate as little as I could and my blood sugars were always balanced, I was never tired and I lost a ton of weight.

My kids love rice, but outside of that they eat very little carbs/sugars. The really don't like too many sweets, so I'm wondering if sweets is not a learned desire. They get a soft drink now and then and fast food every once in a while but I really work hard on providing real meats and veggies. My I buy 1/2 a cow at a time from a friend who raises a few cows a year solely on grass on 20 acres. The meat is very lean and has incredible taste to store bought. I also staked my freezer with salmon and steelhead that I catch and so they get that once a week too. Chicken is about 3 times a week, but I think beef is their favorite.

BTW they are hardly never sick and do not have any emotional/behavioral issues so many others in their schools have. They are the biggest in their classes with little fat on them too.




Well this is why-- your kids dont have the usual temptations to crave bad carbs or salty greasy fast food because you are offering good sources of proteins and fats and a diet with more nutritio

Thats the secret to beating all cravings for the cabals processed foods

There is a reason that the word hospital comes from a sect of the knights templar and why pyramid is used to tell people to mainly eat sugar/carbs

Yes folks grains are mainly processed by your body as sugar and thus stored as fat



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 11:49 PM
link   
reply to post by holywar666
 
Congratulations on a very successful thread...s+f...

What would happen if we could take a healthy young adult from say 1800,whos body was never exposed to and filled with all the fabricated junk food,sugar based candy and high fructose corn syrup that the majority of people have exposed themselves to and are filling their bodies with night and day...

and start feeding that healthy person the types of fabricated junk foods that most people eat these days and after a few years of consuming those kinds of foods,what would happen to their health?

I'll bet anything that all kinds of health problems would arise and they would start to become sick,they would become run down,they would be tired a lot,they would develop frequent headaches,their teeth would start decaying,they would become short tempered,they would have trouble sleeping,they would start gaining weight and maybe even worse health issues would arise...

and what would actually be happening to that person,is that they would be tranformed from a healthy person, into what most of us are today...


edit on 10-4-2012 by blocula because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by blocula
What would happen if we could take a healthy young adult from say 1800,whos body was never exposed to and filled with all the fabricated junk food,sugar based candy and high fructose corn syrup that the majority of people have exposed themselves to and are filling their bodies with night and day...


It was already pretty much too late by the 1800's. Granted, things are even more synthetic and fabricated now, but we had long strayed from what we were genetically engineered to eat by then. Take somebody from about 10,000 years ago, but you wouldn't have to do that actually, your experiment has played out in real life when aboriginal hunter gatherer tribes were exposed to western diets. Obesity, and inflammatory degenerative diseases they didn't suffer before reared their ugly heads.
edit on 11-4-2012 by 27jd because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 01:25 PM
link   
Here's a good, unbiased read on hunter gatherer tribes exposed to western diet...

www.beyondveg.com...
edit on 11-4-2012 by 27jd because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by ShadowAngel85
 


The reason you don't see it in too many places other than the USA is because agribusines subsidies make corn syrup so cheap that companies can use it at a much lower cost than conventional sugar. The US is just about the only (if not the only) with such subsidies in place for corn. Buy a coke in Mexico vs one in the US, and the difference is stark.



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 05:04 PM
link   
I've known for years that HFCS is hard for the liver to metabolize, so is alcohol actually.
There is a need for HFCS though.
My family knows how to cook, we have forever it's what we do.
One of the things we cook is home made candy.
HFCS was originally invented(as far as I know) for the home cook who makes candy.
Just a tiny bit of HFCS plus real sugar makes the final candy more consistent and prevents the normal table sugar from re crystallizing during the candy making process.
I don't think HFCS should be used in everything, in fact I think it should be used sparingly.
Just like alcohol is used in cooking to bring out alcohol soluble flavors there is a place for HFCS all be it a small place.

That said I do try to avoid manufactured products with HFCS as much as possible.
I've even switched to Mountian Dew throwback because they use real table sugar not HFCS.
It's not as "sweet" as regular mountian dew but it tastes a hell of a lot better.



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 10:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd

Originally posted by blocula
What would happen if we could take a healthy young adult from say 1800,whos body was never exposed to and filled with all the fabricated junk food,sugar based candy and high fructose corn syrup that the majority of people have exposed themselves to and are filling their bodies with night and day...


It was already pretty much too late by the 1800's. Granted, things are even more synthetic and fabricated now, but we had long strayed from what we were genetically engineered to eat by then. Take somebody from about 10,000 years ago, but you wouldn't have to do that actually, your experiment has played out in real life when aboriginal hunter gatherer tribes were exposed to western diets. Obesity, and inflammatory degenerative diseases they didn't suffer before reared their ugly heads.
edit on 11-4-2012 by 27jd because: (no reason given)
Can you name one single type of processed and fabricated food that the average person was eating in the year 1800? the average person back then was living on a farm or in the woods and was either growing and eating their own food,or was trading or buying it off of someone who was...



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 10:34 PM
link   
reply to post by blocula
 


Actually, a lot of people lived in metropolitan areas by 1800.

"By the 1800's with the increase in sugar production sugar was becoming more common in the middle and poor classes. With the onset of the industrial revolution and tax incentives supported by the British government, sugar became affordable and a major source of calories for the working class"

www.becominghistorians.org...

"In 1800, the average person consumed about 18 pounds of sugar per year"

"1800 British sugar consumption reaches 160 million pounds per year. "

books.google.ca... &sa=X&ei=X0yGT9C-A6vKiALAwvTKDw&ved=0CGAQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=sugar%20consumption%201800&f=false

www.wholevegan.com...



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 07:42 AM
link   
High fructose corn syrup is disgusting. Check the labels before you eat anything.



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 08:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd
One final dietary related comment from me. Another way we shoot ourselves in the foot healthwise, is the idea that we must eat 3 square meals a day. That's another thing our bodies weren't engineered to do. We were meant to encounter times of little food availability. It is a big job for our bodies to digest food, and takes a lot of blood to do so. All the while other tasks our blood is meant to perform don't get done. If once a week everybody skipped breakfast and lunch, their health would improve greatly. That's a 24 hour fast, it's hard to do when you eat a lot of highly processed, high glycemic foods because those foods are addictive like alcohol and cigarettes. But if you eat dinner, go to bed, and not eat again until dinner the next day, your body will use the blood to clean itself up and filter out toxins.


That's pretty unsound, unscientific advice. How about eating small portions frequently, allowing your Krebs cycle to do its job without the volume overload high sugar content foods create? The advice you gave is pretty much going directly in the face of our biological processes. Fasting slows down that metabolic process, so when you do eat, more of it is turns into harmful lipids which are a cause of those chronic illnesses.

You want your body to effectively use what you consume, the less that hits the liver the better. Eat foods that the whole body can utilize, and the volume that does reach the liver will be small. It will produce minimal harmful substances. Eating the right things, in the right portions, frequently, will improve the metabolic process (Krebs cycle), and you will end up a lot better off than fasting. Significantly so.
edit on 12-4-2012 by grimreaper797 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 09:01 AM
link   
reply to post by WP4YT
 


I can totally vouch for cutting out sugar and weight loss. I substituted raw sugar in my coffee ( I drink a lot of coffee) for STEVIA a natural sweet substitute and found it a bit too sweet. But what happened after using it in my coffee for a few weeks was that is killed my addiction to the sugar.
I was drinking just skim milked coffee with no sugar or Stevia after about 2 weeks and lost 14 Kilos in about 8 weeks.
All I did was ditch the sugar and absolutely nothing else. ( I was already using skim milk before).
Giving up sugar also killed my taste for a lot of other things like Cheese, Bread, crisps ( I mainly had them of a weekend so not a huge consumer anyway). I've really just lost my taste for them and also for biscuits, cakes, chocolate etc. ...I used to have them occasionally but now don't feel like them at all.

Imagine the weight loss with ditching HFCS from the diet? I'd imagine it would be greater than giving up sugar.
Not to mention the health benefits like lower risk for diabetes etc.
edit on 12-4-2012 by Flighty because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by blocula
Can you name one single type of processed and fabricated food that the average person was eating in the year 1800? the average person back then was living on a farm or in the woods and was either growing and eating their own food,or was trading or buying it off of someone who was...


Grains, and legumes all have to be processed to some degree. Of course not the levels of processing we have now but you can not eat those things raw. If you do, you will become ill as they are toxic. Dairy may not be toxic in raw form, but it was NOT meant for us. It was meant for the babies of those specific animals. And once those babies are grown and eating what they are supposed to, they stop consuming it. There are acids and hormones in cows milk that can cause all kinds of problems that one may not even associate with their intake of dairy. Cancers and inflammatory disease rates spiked once people started including grains and dairy in their diets regularly.



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by grimreaper797
 


Unscientific huh? You think our ancestors had food available, every day? You seem to not understand how the body works, it takes a lot longer than 24 hours for the body to start breaking down muscle, and negatively affecting the liver. Have a read....

blogs.discovermagazine.com...

www.npr.org...


In my Primal Health articles here at MDA, I am always looking at ways we can harness our DNA blueprint to maximize health. I like to see how we can shake things up a little and trick the body into burning more fuel, creating more lean muscle, repairing cell damage and staying injury- and illness-free. So when my 79-year-old buddy Sid at the gym started raving about his weekly 24-hour fast over a year ago, and my friend Art started writing about his own fasting experiences, I decided to look into it further.

The results were surprising and impressive.

Numerous animal and human studies done over the past 15 years suggest that periodic fasting can have dramatic results not only in areas of weight (fat) loss, but in overall health and longevity as well. A recent article in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition gives a great overview of these benefits which include decreases in blood pressure, reduction in oxidative damage to lipids, protein and DNA, improvement in insulin sensitivity and glucose uptake, as well as decreases in fat mass.

How can you argue with results like these? And it all makes sense from an evolutionary perspective, because our predecessors almost certainly went through regular cycles where food was either abundant or very scarce. The body may have established protective mechanisms to adapt to these conditions by sensitizing insulin receptors when it was critical that every bit of food be efficiently used or stored (as in famine), or by desensitizing them when there was a surplus, so the body wouldn’t be overly-burdened by grossly excessive calorie intake.

Read more: www.marksdailyapple.com...





edit on 12-4-2012 by 27jd because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd

Dairy may not be toxic in raw form, but it was NOT meant for us. It was meant for the babies of those specific animals. And once those babies are grown and eating what they are supposed to, they stop consuming it. There are acids and hormones in cows milk that can cause all kinds of problems that one may not even associate with their intake of dairy. Cancers and inflammatory disease rates spiked once people started including grains and dairy in their diets regularly.


What you are saying is true and not at the same time.
Dairy is not produced for our consumption, but we have adapted to consume it.
That is why everyone is not lactose intolerant, most animals and some humans lose the ability to digest dairy as they age.
Some humans and some animals retain that ability.

There are certain things our ancestors knew that we simply forgot or don't care about.
Dairy consumption should not follow meat consumption or be consumed shortly before consuming meat.
The body concentrates on the meat and the dairy actually spoils in our digestive tract to a small extent, repeatedly having dairy follow meat can lead to adverse things such as toxins produced which make our livers work over time.

Grain plus dairy is actually a good combination, the grain provides heart healthy enzymes, and combining it with milk makes a complete protein.

You are right that grains and dairy lead to problems, but that is due to the western tendency to over indulge.
In moderation grain and dairy can be very beneficial for use, especially "processed dairy" such as cheese and butter.
The process of making them alters the structure and makes it very healthy, again in moderation.



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Pigraphia
 


Just because we aren't acutely lactose intolerant, doesn't mean the effects of dairy don't manifest in other inflammatory conditions that you wouldn't associate with dairy. Are you aware that most of the human population is lactose intolerant? I agree though that moderation is a better way to go than daily consumption, if one must consume it at all. I choose not to, but that's my decision and I would never take away anybody else's right to drink whatever they want even if I could.

Here's an interesting article by a breast surgeon, kind of a long read but it's eye opening, should you choose to read it..

www.notmilk.com...





new topics

top topics



 
49
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join


Help ATS Recover with your Donation.
read more: Help ATS Recover With Your Contribution