Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

look... I know people have been saying High fructose corn syrup is bad for you for years, but it appears that it is really, really, really.. bad for you...and so is sugar.

Watched 60 minutes tonight...scary story on sugar and high fructose corn syrup. I had allready cut out sodas from mine and my kids diet. Gonna have to check all labels for HFCS.

One scientist is saying that it should be treated like tobacco and alcohol in terms of it's health effects.

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7403942n

^^^^edit...orginal 60 minutes story (14 minute long)


http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504803_162-57407203-10391709/sugar-and-kids-the-toxic-truth/?tag=cbsnewsMainColumnArea.0

(edit..the above is not the actual 60 minutes story just an additional online exclusive.)

youtube video of Dr. Robert Lustig.





GG

generalgrog wrote:look... I know people have been saying High fructose corn syrup is bad for you for years, but it appears that it is really, really, really.. bad for you...and so is sugar.

Watched 60 minutes tonight...

I stopped reading there :p

But yeah, in all honesty, it seems like you can 'manage' IF you consume particularly sugary drinks or foods in moderation and treat them like 'desserts'(which, and correct me if I'm wrong, is what soft drinks originally were).

EDIT: Although sugar(rather, 'sugar-type substances') seem to exist in tons of foods, not just sweets and soft drinks.

I really hope the OP is being sarcastic...because if you just now realized this...smh

Amaya wrote:I really hope the OP is being sarcastic...because if you just now realized this...smh

I'm being somewhat sarcastic...but truly hadn't realized HOW bad it is for you.

GG

generalgrog wrote:

Amaya wrote:I really hope the OP is being sarcastic...because if you just now realized this...smh

I'm being somewhat sarcastic...but truly hadn't realized HOW bad it is for you.

GG

Fructose in and of itself is not bad, it is merely an isomer of glucose (i.e. same formula, different molecular structure), it is more soluable than water and has (IIRC) higher energy per unit than glucose, having too much fructose is no different to having too much glucose, it is stored as fat until the body needs to use it.
The problem is not fructose itself, but people who don't regulate their intake of it.
(Where's Melissia when you need her, she probably knows more about this than I do).

Eh, it's not simply the fact that people are eating high sugar diets (even though that it is a big part), but a big part of the problem is that eating 3 heavy meals a day is bad for the metabolism and many people only eat once or twice a day with intermittent sodas and high carb (primarily sugars) snacks.

Just finished watching that video of DR. Lustig. He did state that for high level athletes, fructose intake makes sense..however he is claiming that fructose in general is a poison. He calls it "ethanol without the buzz" and showed where ethanol and fructose causes many of the same problems.

He is basically saying that the entire food industry should do away with fructose, because of the effects it is having on our society in regards to obesity, type 2 diabetes and cardio vascular disease. He also pointed out why the FDA and our government probably will not do anything about it because there is so much money to be made from selling our food overseas.

GG

edit...here is a counterpoint blog...
http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/

Just did a bit of research High fructose corn syrup as barely more fructose than sucrose.
Sucrose is 50-50 fructose and glucose
HFCS is 55-45 fructose and glucose (respecitviley) a barely signficant difference at best

(source http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/High-fructose_corn_syrup)

Amaya wrote:Eh, it's not simply the fact that people are eating high sugar diets (even though that it is a big part), but a big part of the problem is that eating 3 heavy meals a day is bad for the metabolism and many people only eat once or twice a day with intermittent sodas and high carb (primarily sugars) snacks.

Well, theoretically, the metabolism is best maintained (considering nothing else) by not eating "meals" per se, but sort of "grazing" every hour or two. Of course, that's not really going to fit into most lifestyles. Hell, even eating more than 3 times a day is often difficult.

Krellnus wrote:The problem is not fructose itself, but people who don't regulate their intake of it.

This.

Having a Coke now and then isn't a problem. It's drinking several per day and then wondering why you're a barrel-ass.

dogma wrote:

Well, theoretically, the metabolism is best maintained (considering nothing else) by not eating "meals" per se, but sort of "grazing" every hour or two. Of course, that's not really going to fit into most lifestyles. Hell, even eating more than 3 times a day is often difficult.

Yeah I read this in a fitness magazine and tried it, had great results, ive dropped about 15lbs inside six weeks and im back up to 25 chin ups and a 7 minute mile. I kinda yoyo dieted my whole career thanks to the fact that when you return from somewhere like Iraq and your existing on MRE's, gak food and NO BEER for months, when you return home and get 10 weeks leave, you spend 8 weeks of it drunk and full of Ben and Jerrys.

Anyway, I started knocking back a protein shake for breakfast, taking a large protein bar to work and biting off a large chunk at 2 hour intervals throughout the day and then eating 3 small (3-400 calorie) meals during the evening and really noticed great results both in the mirror and in the gym.

I don't think its that hard to do, its just boring as feth. I have managed to stick to this regimen by adhering to it rigorously Monday-Friday and then getting leathered on Saturdays.

As far as the thread goes, its pretty obvious, if you eat gak you feel gak, and if you eat healthy you feel great. Sugar might lift your spirits in the short term, but in the long term its better to drink some Perrier water and then get your fat ass on the stairmaster for an hour.

generalgrog wrote:look... I know people have been saying High fructose corn syrup is bad for you for years, but it appears that it is really, really, really.. bad for you...and so is sugar.

Watched 60 minutes tonight...scary story on sugar and high fructose corn syrup. I had allready cut out sodas from mine and my kids diet. Gonna have to check all labels for HFCS.

One scientist is saying that it should be treated like tobacco and alcohol in terms of it's health effects.


http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504803_162-57407203-10391709/sugar-and-kids-the-toxic-truth/?tag=cbsnewsMainColumnArea.0

(edit..the above is not the actual 60 minutes story just an additional online exclusive.)

youtube video of Dr. Robert Lustig.





GG

That "scientist" should be killed by a pack of wiener dogs, his skinny corpse then roasted by small children all dancing and singing "Kill the Pig! Spill its Blood! Kill the Pig! Spill its Blood!"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Amaya wrote:Eh, it's not simply the fact that people are eating high sugar diets (even though that it is a big part), but a big part of the problem is that eating 3 heavy meals a day is bad for the metabolism and many people only eat once or twice a day with intermittent sodas and high carb (primarily sugars) snacks.

Don't blame the sugar, blame the walking moo cows.

It is considerably harder to get fat just eating meat/poultry, fruits, and vegetables than it is when you're eating a high carb (primarily sugars) diet.

Amaya wrote:It is considerably harder to get fat just eating meat/poultry, fruits, and vegetables than it is when you're eating a high carb (primarily sugars) diet.

Yeah I reckon It would be almost impossible. Poultry and meat fills you up so much, and fresh veg has feth all calories in it. You might be able to do it on fruit, but only armed with a juicer. Apples and Oranges have plenty of sugar in, I reckon I could drink 30 oranges, but eating them would be an impossibility.

mattyrm wrote:

Amaya wrote:It is considerably harder to get fat just eating meat/poultry, fruits, and vegetables than it is when you're eating a high carb (primarily sugars) diet.

Yeah I reckon It would be almost impossible. Poultry and meat fills you up so much, and fresh veg has feth all calories in it. You might be able to do it on fruit, but only armed with a juicer. Apples and Oranges have plenty of sugar in, I reckon I could drink 30 oranges, but eating them would be an impossibility.

When I was eating pretty much only chicken, broccoli, eggs, and a piece of fruit (apple usually) I felt stuffed on 2000 calories a day. Very easy to lose weight like that.

Check out the book 'Sugar Blues' by William Dufty, good little read outdated a bit, but the basic theme is still there. Did you know the sugar industry is bigger then the oil industry?

I think it's also on pdf.

Krellnus wrote:Just did a bit of research High fructose corn syrup as barely more fructose than sucrose.
Sucrose is 50-50 fructose and glucose
HFCS is 55-45 fructose and glucose (respecitviley) a barely signficant difference at best

(source http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/High-fructose_corn_syrup)

He goes into the bio chemical differences between ethanol, fructose, and glucose and how it metabolizes.

GG

mattyrm wrote:NO BEER

This, if nothing else, has ensured I will never be a military man.

mattyrm wrote:
Anyway, I started knocking back a protein shake for breakfast, taking a large protein bar to work and biting off a large chunk at 2 hour intervals throughout the day and then eating 3 small (3-400 calorie) meals during the evening and really noticed great results both in the mirror and in the gym.

Yeah, my eating schedule is basically a small breakfast, a moderately sized lunch, and 4 small meals afterwards, the last being right before I go to the gym at midnight (my schedule is really weird).

mattyrm wrote:
I don't think its that hard to do, its just boring as feth. I have managed to stick to this regimen by adhering to it rigorously Monday-Friday and then getting leathered on Saturdays.

That's what I do as well. I always make sure to get good and smashed at least once a week. I used to indulge in certain foods too, but if you're on this type of diet long enough (I've been on it for ~4 years) you lose your taste for a lot the worse foods. I can't stomach things like french fries, steak, beef hamburgers, beef hot dogs, Alfredo sauce (I still eat it, because its delicious, but I always regret it), White Castle, or Taco Bell anymore.

You don't say?

Please don't post images with swears. Thanks ~Manchu

Amaya wrote:It is considerably harder to get fat just eating meat/poultry, fruits, and vegetables than it is when you're eating a high carb (primarily sugars) diet.

Carb intensive foods aren't a huge problem, carb intensive drinks on the other hand...you don't notice you put down 1000 calories of Pepsi the way you notice putting down 1000 calories of bread.

Hell, 14 years ago, when I was the fat kid, I made a conscious choice to switch to diet soda (back when it tasted like ass) and lost 30 pounds in 2 months without any additional exercise.

dogma wrote:

Amaya wrote:It is considerably harder to get fat just eating meat/poultry, fruits, and vegetables than it is when you're eating a high carb (primarily sugars) diet.

Carb intensive foods aren't a huge problem, carb intensive drinks on the other hand...you don't notice you put down 1000 calories of Pepsi the way you notice putting down 1000 calories of bread.

Hell, 14 years ago, when I was the fat kid, I made a conscious choice to switch to diet soda (back when it tasted like ass) and lost 30 pounds in 2 months without any additional exercise.

High carb foods are a significant problem, but at least whole wheat ones have a semblance of nutritional value. The average person who simply wants to be 'healthy' can eat a fair amount of carbs as can athletes in endurance sports. Unless you're doing intensive/extensive cardio you'll never be lean (unless already naturally so) unless you cut carbs for a sustained period of time. If you're an endomorph eating a lot of carbs will keep you heavy.

I'm not going to advocate eating no breads as that's just not feasible for the average person, but carb centric meals (pasta, cereal for breakfast, pizza) are not good choices.

Amaya wrote:
I'm not going to advocate eating no breads as that's just not feasible for the average person, but carb centric meals (pasta, cereal for breakfast, pizza) are not good choices.

That's a myth, for the most part.

The short of it is that protein and lipids will be used by your body as they are necessary, with excess converted to, effectively, raw calories of the sort produced by carbs.

The biggest problem people face in terms of diet is appropriately gauging consumption to their level of activity. Eating 2000 calories while sitting in front of a computer for 8 hours a day, and not exercising, is going to make you fat regardless of the source of those calories.

It's not. Grains are not a natural part of the human diet unless there have been significant evolutionary changes in humans since the dawn of bread (roughly 10,000 years ago). It's a cheap food that'll keep you ticking, but it's an inferior choice to meats, vegetables, and fruits. A fair amount of individuals of European ancestry can't process glutens and cutting them out of their diet resolves intestinal problems (particularly gas).

Everything you can get from grains you can get elsewhere, with all of the negative bits avoided.

Amaya wrote:It's not. Grains are not a natural part of the human diet unless there have been significant evolutionary changes in humans since the dawn of bread (roughly 10,000 years ago). It's a cheap food that'll keep you ticking, but it's an inferior choice to meats, vegetables, and fruits. A fair amount of individuals of European ancestry can't process glutens and cutting them out of their diet resolves intestinal problems (particularly gas).

Everything you can get from grains you can get elsewhere, with all of the negative bits avoided.

There aren't any negative bits (carbs exist in fruit vegetables, nuts, and most other foods as well), and you can get pretty much any primary nutritional benefit from sources that aren't the culturally assumed primary source.

The allergy argument is easily dealt with by considering nuts, fish, eggs, and a host of other foods.

Billions of people eat sugar every day.
It's not "bad for you". Something that lowers your life expectancy from 86 to 84 isn't really bad news.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:
The biggest problem people face in terms of diet is appropriately gauging consumption to their level of activity. Eating 2000 calories while sitting in front of a computer for 8 hours a day, and not exercising, is going to make you fat regardless of the source of those calories.

Not really. It's entirely down to your weight and muscle/metabolism. We're all animals and we're all different.
I'm six foot tall and pretty big, when I want to lose weight I eat 2,000 (and do moderate exersise) and the weight piles off. I can eat 2,500 calories a day and do little exersise without gaining weight.

dogma wrote:

Amaya wrote:It's not. Grains are not a natural part of the human diet unless there have been significant evolutionary changes in humans since the dawn of bread (roughly 10,000 years ago). It's a cheap food that'll keep you ticking, but it's an inferior choice to meats, vegetables, and fruits. A fair amount of individuals of European ancestry can't process glutens and cutting them out of their diet resolves intestinal problems (particularly gas).

Everything you can get from grains you can get elsewhere, with all of the negative bits avoided.

There aren't any negative bits (carbs exist in fruit vegetables, nuts, and most other foods as well), and you can get pretty much any primary nutritional benefit from sources that aren't the culturally assumed primary source.

The allergy argument is easily dealt with by considering nuts, fish, eggs, and a host of other foods.

40% of people are allergic to eggs? I'm not talking about carbs, I'm talking about grains. You should probably actually research the negative side effects of grains and the contents before saying there are no negative bits to them.

Lectins, glutens, and phyates are all found in grains and are not good for you. Fiber and vitamins in grains can be found elsewhere in other foods that do not have crap in them.

Amaya wrote:
Lectins, glutens, and phyates are all found in grains and are not good for you. Fiber and vitamins in grains can be found elsewhere in other foods that do not have crap in them.

What food has no "crap" in it?

OMG SUGAR BAD!

Yeesh. Sugar is a carb. Big deal. Too much can kill you. No surprise there. So can drinking too much water. Too much oxygen can be lethal. In short, TOO MUCH OF ANY ONE THING IS BAD, duh!

We need a scientist to tell us this?

You realize that sugar is the primary source of energy for our bodies, right?

Without sugar you would not die slowly.

You would die instantly, or very close to it, as your body finds itself unable to produce energy for things such as, say, heartbeats and lung expansions.

Melissia wrote:You realize that sugar is the primary source of energy for our bodies, right?

Without sugar you would not die slowly.

You would die instantly, or very close to it, as your body finds itself unable to produce energy for things such as, say, heartbeats and lung expansions.

Okay, you have to be trolling now.