It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


High Fructose Corn Syrup is killing all of us

page: 8
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in


posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 10:42 PM
reply to post by 27jd

You can always count on the internet for people to come up with theories to starve yourself on alternative days and call it a health benefit.

Eat nothing one day then eat whatever you want the next, then go back to eating nothing, etc. etc... the effects aren't surprising. Yes, you're obviously going to lose weight. Yes, you're Insulin Sensitivity is obviously going to increase. That's what happens when you starve yourself. Your body leeches from other parts of the body to feed itself, no surprise there.

You know what else causes your body to tap into the energy reserves? Not over indulging. You know what else helps your Insulin Sensitivity, not eating foods high in sugar.

So here we have two options. Eat responsibly, or starve yourself. Both are going to help you lose weight, both are going to show positive effects on insulin levels, IS, and the kinds of fats your body is storing/producing.
Starving yourself on and off means there will be times where your body isn't getting proper nutrition, eating responsibly means you will.

Don't give me those "our ancestors" crap, they were often had terrible nutrition and died much younger than we do now. They may have been lean, but they weren't healthy.

"It ispossible that these effects resulted from the decreases in body weight (2.5%) and fat mass (4.0%) observed in these subjects, who were unable to consume sufficient calories on the feast day to maintain an isocaloric state."

Also the study says that adiponectin was increased significantly by this diet. That's really no surprise as losing weight causes this protein to rise in levels. It just so happens that adiponectin has been shown, in combination with leptin (leptin level as said to be unchanged by this diet), to completely reverse insulin resistance in mice. So there's a real strong possibility that the diet simply causes you to lose weight because you can't intake as many calories. That weight lose promotes adiponectin production, and this causes insulin resistance to go down. So there you have the weight loss explained, the insulin sensitivity improvement explained, and many other effects were very similar to CR method.

The only thing this study proved was that losing weight led to health benefits. Having actually just read the entire science journal, not the blog, I have to wonder whether you actually read it or not.
"An important study design issue is whether weight loss should be prevented in human ADF studies by "forced" maintenance of calorie intake. Forcing maintenance of intake may produce harmful effects over the long term, so this approach cannot currently be recommended."

So basically, Alternate-day fasting could really just be another form of calorie reduction, and they can't test that because forcing a non-calorie reduction version of ADF would be dangerous. And did you read the conclusion? They basically said that few real studies have been done in the human trials. The one that were done varied from the animal trials.

At best, this diet might be AS effective as a calorie reduction diet, but I doubt it. So far, the only real evidence I've seen for this diet is that you'll likely see health benefits from losing weight. But you'll probably lose that weight because you can't stuff your face enough to eat twice your daily diet on the days you aren't fasting.

Your argument about caveman diet is just nonsense. They were hardly the poster children for good nutrition.

Eating responsibly and getting exercises is still the top dog when it comes to being healthy. Sorry to burst your magic diet bubble.

posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 11:20 PM
reply to post by grimreaper797

They're not just "people on the internet". They're medical professionals and nutritionists. And skipping two meals in a week is hardly "starving" yourself. But I'm not interested in going back and forth with you on this, I'll stop giving you the "our ancestors" crap, and you keep buying into the SAD food pyramid garbage. I'm sure you suffer from an inflammatory ailment of some sort too, most people do. Have fun with that. I've never been overweight, and have always exercised regularly, but suffered asthma and allergies, and since I've been following a paleo diet those things have gone away. I haven't been sick for 2 years, since I started paleo nutrition. I don't really care if you believe me or not. I'm not selling anything.

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

posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 11:18 AM
reply to post by 27jd

That's fine and all, but so far there's no scientific evidence to prove that this ADF really works, or if it's just another form of calorie reduction.

As for your assumptions about my health, no I don't suffer from those things. I take a great deal of consideration for everything I put in my body, how it metabolizes, and how much of it is good/bad. Yes it take a LOT of initial studying and learning to find out how all these things interact with your body. It's not easy at all, as you're constantly learning what this nutrient does, what that ingredient does, etc. every time you want to add something new to your diet, but it's worth it. I also work out, once and sometimes twice a day, about 5-6 times a week. I'm healthier than I've ever been because I put effort into it.

I don't like your "diet" plan because its overly simplistic, disregards biochemsitry, and gives people the wrong impression. The people on the internet are the ones saying "wow look at what it does". The medical professions they're quoting are saying "The studies are pretty limited, some of them were ran poorly, the evidence is far from conclusive, we're not even sure if the main cause was a reduction in calorie intake." So yeah, people on the internet claiming that ADF works based on there own poor or selective reading skills. Maybe they were lazy and didn't want to read the entire publication, or maybe they purposely ignored it. Regardless, there's nothing of substance that supports this.

That's a common theme on ATS though, approach a complex problem/system, and come up with the most simplistic explanation/solution possible thinking it will be better than our current understanding just because they don't really care to learn about the subject in depth.

As for your personal experience, I'm glad you're feeling better, but that's not evidence of anything. There's a ton of variables you probably never even took into account which is why they do scientific studies with as many variables as possible controlled. I'm not saying you should stop, because chances are you're taking in less calories this way which is probably a good thing, as most people are eating way too much these days, but no ADF is NOT based on any sort of scientific process.

Oh and also, why did you need to make another assumption about me believing in the standard american diet? Is that your way of trying to discredit me or something? Take shot at me on stuff I don't even believe in? Look if you want to create an unscientific based diet because that's what cavemen ate, by all means I'm not stopping you. But there's no need for you to make one assumption after another about my diet, my health, and my own viewpoints just so you have something to take a shot at.
edit on 13-4-2012 by grimreaper797 because: edit to add

posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 12:42 PM

Originally posted by grimreaper797
The people on the internet are the ones saying "wow look at what it does".

Like I said, I'm not going round and round with you. This argument has been carried out time and again, I have done my research as well, and this works for me. I know because of how good I feel. It may not work for you, but I doubt you'd ever give it a try because you seem to think you have it all figured out. Good for you. But, you got to love the irony of somebody on the internet, railing against people on the internet. There's lots of real, paper literature out there as well supporting an evolutionary approach to nutrition. There's plenty of evidence supporting 'diseases of affluence' and how they have increased dramatically with the western diet. But, if you don't eat that way, then again, good for you. The problem with nutrition, is that some people become so emotionally invested in what they believe that they become combative when they feel challenged. A friend of mine is an MD specializing in endocrinology, lipids, etc. and he is very pro fasting. He is not some person on the internet. There was lots of info in the links I provided, and so far the evidence supporting 24 hour fasting on a regular basis is mounting. Just because it hasn't been studied for as long as you feel it should, doesn't make it invalid or unhealthy.
edit on 13-4-2012 by 27jd because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 01:46 PM
Here's an objective article in the L.A. Times, complete with study results, and medical professionals from both sides of the argument weighing in. There IS science backing it up, contrary to your statements.

Called intermittent fasting, this rather stark approach to weight control appears to be supported by science, not to mention various religious and cultural practices around the globe. The practice is a way to become more circumspect about food, its adherents say. But it also seems to yield the benefits of calorie restriction, which may ultimately reduce the risk of some diseases and even extend life. Some fasters, in fact, ultimately switch from regular, if comparatively rare, periods of hunger to permanent deprivation. They limit calories all the time.

"There is something kind of magical about starvation," says Dr. Marc Hellerstein, a professor of endocrinology, metabolism and nutrition at UC Berkeley, who studies fasting.


With intermittent fasting, "the idea is that maybe you can trick the system to think it's starving, but not make it starve every day," Hellerstein says.

Researchers aren't sure why the body apparently benefits from a state of mini-starvation. One theory is that the process produces just enough stress in cells to be good. "What our evidence suggests is that nerve cells in animals that are on dietary energy restriction are under mild stress," Mattson says. "It's a mild stress that stimulates the production of proteins that protect the neurons against more severe stress."


University of Utah scientists looked at health data from members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, who have lower rates of heart disease than most Americans. Mormons typically don't smoke or drink alcohol, and some abstain from food on the first Sunday of every month. After controlling for several factors that protect against heart disease, the researchers found that only fasting made a significant difference in lowering the risk of heart disease. Among 448 people surveyed, intermittent fasting was associated with more than a 40% reduction in heart disease risk. Fasting was also linked to a lower incidence of diabetes. The study was published in October in the American Journal of Cardiology.

Another study showed that asthma patients who fasted had fewer symptoms, better airway function and a decrease in the markers of inflammation in the blood than those who didn't fast or restrict calories. The study was conducted because being overweight is known to worsen asthma symptoms. The study was published in 2007 in the journal Free Radical Biology & Medicine.

Guess you're smarter and more informed than a metabolism professor at UC Berkeley, and you'll tell me he's just a "person on the internet'. Also, there's conflicting opinions and scarce studies on your 'grazing' method as well...

edit on 13-4-2012 by 27jd because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 07:46 PM
reply to post by holywar666

When I worked I got chewed out for wearing a light perfume.

The girl in the next cube would make this sickening syrupy maple sweet Quaker's Oakmeal every morning and the smell was nauseating, absolutely sickening to me.

S & F

Can't stand the stuff.

posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 08:09 PM
reply to post by ofhumandescent

I remember at an office I worked at, there were areas where perfume wasn't allowed because it triggers asthma attacks in some people...

posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 09:41 PM
I know this will bump this but in the UK HFCS is called Wheat Glucose Fructose syrup.

I was looking for HFCS in products over in UK and not finding any, so I thought we are safe. NO we aren't!!

Glucose-Fructose Syrup, Isoglucose, High Fructose Corn Syrup
In Europe, Glucose-Fructose Syrup is the official name used on ingredient labelling. This type of syrup is also sometimes referred to as isoglucose. The name isoglucose is used because the production process uses isomerisation enzymes. (See the next section: How is GFS made?)
Within the European Union (EU), the Sugar Regime regulates the allowed production quota. Production of GFS is currently limited to about 5% of total sugar production in the EU. Therefore, wide-scale replacement of sugar has not occurred in Europe and it remains a small market.
In the US, this type of product is more commonly produced with a 55% fructose content and is called High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS).

So now I have to chuck the Waitrose squash (juice diluted with water) down the drain.
And start looking again, after I found that Robinsons orange squash had Aspartame in it. And I had been consuming that for nearly 20yrs.

I am so mad.

posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 09:54 PM
reply to post by AriesJedi
so you happilly consumed this for 20yrs with no ill effects(i assume).
it can't be that bad.
you know for 20 yrs it was never a problem, yet now it's evil poison?

posted on Dec, 3 2013 @ 05:23 PM
reply to post by holywar666

Great topic, if us humans could eliminate corn syrup from our diet, that would be a good start. Large companies are more concerned about profit and saving money than human health. That goes for flouride, aspartame, alchohol, pills etc. Check out the store Fresh N Easy, they don't sell a single thing that contains high fructose corn syrup.

posted on Dec, 3 2013 @ 05:33 PM
A much bigger concern than corn syrup is fretting over things that don't really matter. You don't have to eat it if you don't want to eat it. People who eliminate it from their diets don't live any longer than those who don't. The average human lifespan isn't lowering because of it.

I guess some people just can't live without worrying about dumb stuff.

new topics

top topics

<< 5  6  7   >>

log in